Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Imposed Fine of Rs. 1 Lakh On Wife - Courts Not Meant for Settling Personal Scores in Matrimonial Disputes - Quased FIR Post Mutual Divorce Settlement: MP HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a significant judgement, addressed the issue of quashing FIRs and criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes. The court dealt with petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR lodged under various sections of the IPC following a mutual divorce settlement.

Facts and Issues: The petitions filed by Anshul Gupta and his parents contested the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2, Gupta's former wife, under IPC sections including 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), among others. The primary issue was the non-withdrawal of the case by respondent No. 2 despite a mutual divorce decree, where she agreed to withdraw all pending cases against the petitioners.

Abuse of Legal Process: The court highlighted the misuse of the legal process by the respondent, noting, "the criminal complaint... was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents."

No Substantiation of Section 313 IPC Charge: The allegations under Section 313 (punishment for causing miscarriage without woman's consent) were scrutinized, with the court finding no substantial evidence supporting these claims.

Deliberate Non-Withdrawal by Respondent: Justice Abhyankar observed the deliberate non-withdrawal of the case by the respondent post the mutual divorce settlement, terming it as an abuse of court's process.

Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. It also imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on respondent No. 2 for misusing the court's process, to be paid to the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 01 March 2024.

Anshul  vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.,

Latest Legal News