Path: Home » NEWS against MEN » 498A/ Domestic Violence » Supreme Court: Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed if Matrimonial Disputes Are Amicably Settled

Supreme Court: Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed if Matrimonial Disputes Are Amicably Settled

Supreme Court: Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed if Matrimonial Disputes Are Amicably Settled

The Supreme Court of India recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man following an amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes with his ex-wife. The man had been charged under Sections 498A, 427, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after an FIR was lodged by his wife. The couple later reached a settlement agreement and obtained a mutual consent divorce. They agreed that the FIR and related proceedings should be quashed. However, the Karnataka High Court initially rejected the husband’s request to quash the criminal proceedings.

Relying on the 2003 judgment in BS Joshi & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, the Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, granted relief to the ex-husband and quashed all proceedings against him. The bench, which also included Justice MM Sundresh, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, stating, “If the Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed by exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or even under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”

The Supreme Court noted that the parties had resolved their disputes and a mutual divorce was granted in 2012. Despite this, the Karnataka High Court had refused to quash the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court highlighted that the woman had remarried and did not appear before the court, while the man, an officer in the Border Security Force (BSF), faced potential harassment due to the ongoing case.

The court concluded, “In the facts of the case, we do not feel that any useful purpose would be served by continuation of the prosecution. The appellant, who is an officer in the Border Security Force and as per the job requirement, has to serve in different parts of the country, would be put to harassment.”

Case Title: Rangappa Javoor vs. State Of Karnataka

Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *