Last Updated on June 4, 2024 by Satish Mishra
In this post we will discuss about a Complainant by Sukhwinder Kaur against her matrimonial relatives , under section 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and under section 34 of Dowry Prevention Act and later appealed for the quashing of the FIR registered against the accused
For the ready reference, the provisions of Section 2(a), (f), (q) & (s) of the D.V. Act are reproduced herein below:
“(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
(s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”
Taking the said objective further, the definitions under Section 2(a), (f), (q) & (s) are to be read and understood with Section 19 of the D.V. Act whereby the Magistrate can pass a residence order on being satisfied that the domestic violence has taken place. However, the said order will become redundant and toothless unless the relatives which includes female relatives of the respondent are also bound by it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in 2016(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 750 titled as “Hiral P. Harsora and ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and ors.” has clearly held.
As sequel to the above discussion and in light of the above judicial pronouncement, the contention raised by the counsel that by virtue of Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act, the complaint was not maintainable against the petitioner is rejected and declined. As regards his other contentions that the said property is owned by the petitioner out of her own income is also negated as from the facts it has never been disputed that the said property was not a shared household, rather the petitioner had herself given an undertaking as recorded in the order dated 19.11.2022 whereby the petitioner agreed to take the respondentwife to the shared household. More so, it is not a case where the husband & wife are living separately from the parents of the boy.
Darbara Singh V. State of Punjab
Introduction
In India, there are instances where married women are constantly subjected to physical harassment and violence. To combat the menace, the parliament decided to add section 498 by the criminal amendment Act 1983, in the Indian Penal code 1860. Presently, section 498 states that if married women are subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of the husband of the women, whoever responsible shall be imprisoned for a term which can be extended to three years with a fine. Cruelty under the section is defined as a willful act that is likely to induce women to commit suicide or cause severe injury or danger to life, limb, or health. It further states that if a woman is subjected to harassment with a view of coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or failing to meet the unlawful demand by her or her relatives.
Facts
The Complainant Sukhwinder Kaur who registered an FIR against Darbari Singh, Simranjit Kaur, Harpreet Singh, Joginder Singh, Balkar Singh, Lakhwinder Kaur, Sarabjit Kaur, and Tehal Singh, under section 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and under section ¾ of Dowry Prevention Act, later appealed for the quashing of the FIR registered against the accused. In her statement, she claimed that she has compromised the case with the accused with the intervention of the respectable of the locality without pressure, inducement, coercion, or threat, and the compromise deed which has been submitted to the Honourable High Court is genuine and voluntary.
ALSO READ-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (DV) COMPLAINT CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA AND MOHALI (TRI-CITY)
Issues
Initially, the issues involved in the case were the application of section 498 A which protects a married woman from the cruelty of her husband and the relatives of her husband that can induce her to commit suicide or cause severe injury or danger to her life limb or health. Further section 406 IPC was imposed against the accused which states that whoever comets criminal breach of trust shall be punished for a term which can be extended by 3 years. Further, Section 506 was also charged which states that whoever commits criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either a described term or fine or both. As the petitioner submitted a compromise deed to the High Court, the application of section 482 CrPC would be in question.
Judgment cited
Kulwinder Singh and other v. State of Punjab and others
The Punjab-Haryana High Court in its judgment in the Kulwinder Singh v. the State of Punjab observed that the Court has the powers to allow compounding of non-compounding cases under section 482 CrPC and quash the persecution where the High Court felt that the same was important to prevent the abuse of the proceedings in any court or to otherwise secure the end of justice. The Court in its judgment also mentioned that the High Court must be aware and analyze the gravity and nature of the offense. The High Court cannot quash persecution under section 482 CrPC in serious offenses like rape, murder, dacoity, even if the parties are willing for a compromise. The Court also stated that the powers of the High court are limited on quashing persecution on offenses under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or those offenses by the public servant in the course of their employment even if the victim and the offender are ready to settle the dispute. The Court can exercise its power to quash the proceedings on those criminal cases which have a civil flavour like the offenses arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, and even the offenses arising from dowry.
Giani Singh v. the State of Punjab
In the Giani Singh v. the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held the High Court must refrain itself from quashing criminal proceedings under section 482 CrPC on offenses that are serious and heinous or when the public interest is involved. However, in offenses that are civil and arising from a commercial transaction, the court can quash the proceedings if the dispute is personal and the parties have settled it themselves. The Court also observed that, if the conviction and continuation of criminal proceedings are likely to cause extreme injustice to the accused, then the High Courts may quash the Proceedings.
ALSO READ-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMPLAINTS IN PANCHKULA OSC
Judgment
The court in its decision held that, as the parties are willing for a compromise there would be negligible chances of the witnesses coming forward in favor of the prosecution version. The invocation of section 482 CrPC would be in the interest of both the parties to arrive at a peaceful resolution of the dispute and also to maintain public order. The nature and gravity of the act are not serious and heinous and there is no involvement of any offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In such a situation it would be reasonable to apply section 482 CrPC to meet ends of justice and also to prevent the abuse of court proceedings. The court further observed that the compromise is in consonance with the directions issued by the Court in Kulwinder Singh and other v. State of Punjab, where the Court quashed an FIR to prevent the abuse of the Court’s proceedings. Thus, the FIR filed under section 406, 498-A, 506 IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act and all the subsequent proceedings against the accused arising from the issue are hereby quashed.
ALSO READ-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMPLAINT BY HUSBAND AGAINST WIFE
Conclusion
In India, several legislations were passed to protect women from the cruelty of her husband and relatives of her husband. Inclusion of section 498 to the IPC by the Criminal Amendment Act 1983 and the Prevention of Dowry Act are a few of those legislations. However, sometimes there can be instances when the nature of the offense is not much serious and can be resolved by a mutual understanding between the parties and without the intervention of the Court. In the Darbari Singh v. State of Punjab case, the honourable High Court invoked section 482 CrPC as it found the compromise between the parties to be reasonable. Similar observations were made by the court in Kulwinder Sigh v. the State of Punjab and also in some cases. However, there can be scenarios where the nature of the offense is serious like rape, murder, dacoity, and so on. In such circumstances, it would not be rationale from the side of the court to allow a compromise deed even if the parties (accused and plaintiff) are willing to settle the dispute on their own. Any offense that is a threat to the public order and is against the state cannot be subjected to compromise and the court cannot exercise its power in invoking section 482 CrPC.
Matrimonial issues are complicated so advice of Matrimonial Expert (498A, DV, Maintenance, Divorce, Dowry Prohibition) Advocate Lawyer in Chandigarh, Panchkula, and Mohali in such desired.
So don’t be your own counsel in these cases.
More on, 99888-17966
