MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High 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.,

Similar News