Centre set to prevent misuse of anti-dowry harassment law - Mulling to make it Compoundable. Bailable is solution ? Adding Misuse clause ?

Centre set to prevent misuse of anti-dowry harassment law - Mulling to make it Compoundable. 

Bailable is solution ?

Adding Misuse clause ?

Debate on FOCUS NEWS channel telecasted LIVE on 23 March 2015





Panelists :-

Amit lakhani, Social Activist, Save Indian Family (SIF).
Rekha Agarwal, Supreme Court Advocate.
RS Goswami, Former president, Bar Council. 
Nisha Khanna, Counselor.
Meena Sharma, Anchor, Focus News.


Video Courtesy and Credits - FOCUS NEWS channel

Detailed news at

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/dowry-law-section-498-a-ipc-centre-narendra-modi-nda/1/423362.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Steady-increase-in-number-of-women-filing-false-cases-against-husbands/articleshow/46452475.cms

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-03-11/news/60008620_1_law-commission-draft-bill-compoundable#

Genuine compromise can make ipc 498a compoundable but Can’t nix rape case even after compromise: SC | Isnt it genuinely promoting extortion ?

Genuine compromise can make ipc 498a compoundable but Can’t nix rape case even after compromise: SC  | Isnt it genuinely promoting extortion ?

Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Jul 29, 2014, 12.16 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Dowry harassment cases are personal in nature and can be quashed if the estranged couple reach a "genuine" compromise, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A bench of Justice Ranjana Desai and N V Ramana drew a contrast between offences under Section 498A IPC and heinous crimes like rape and murder, though all three categories of offences are non-compoundable.

It said Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code provided the list of offences that could be compounded after parties reached a compromise and the courts have to strictly follow that.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Desai said, "It is, therefore, not possible to permit compounding of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussion on society, unlike heinous offences like murder, rape etc."

The judgment came in a case related to a complaint under Section 498A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by a woman against her husband and parents-in-law. Though the Madhya Pradesh high court acquitted the parents-in-law, it upheld the conviction of the husband. However, the HC reduced the sentence of the husband to six months imprisonment from two years sentence imposed by the trial court.

In the apex court, the estranged couple reached a compromise with the husband agreeing to pay Rs 2.5 lakh in addition to bearing the cost of litigation. The woman pleaded for quashing of the case against her estranged husband. The standing counsel for Madhya Pradesh opposed quashing the case.

The bench examined whether the apex court could reduce the sentence in a case where the conviction has been upheld by the trial court and the high court. The court found that though Section 498A of IPC did not prescribe a minimum sentence, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provided a minimum six-month sentence.

The court was in a dilemma even after coming to the conclusion that appellate courts could reduce sentence to the period already undergone despite the minimum sentence provided for. The dilemma arose because the husband had been in jail for just seven days.

The bench rejected the state's objection to the compromise and said, "We see no reason why in this case we should not reduce the husband's sentence to the sentence already undergone by him. There can be no doubt about the genuine nature of the compromise between the husband and wife." It recorded the compromise and relieved the husband of further imprisonment.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cant-nix-rape-case-even-after-compromise-SC/articleshow/39186138.cms

Delhi HC slams marital dispute litigants who go back after taking benefits of compromise deed through mediation, makes it tough to go back on mediation

Delhi HC slams marital dispute litigants who go back after taking benefits of compromise deed through mediation, makes it tough to go back on mediation

Thu, Aug 5 05:32 AM

Touted as an effective tool to cut down the pendency of cases across courts, the mediation mechanism has recently hit a stumbling block as instead of ending multifarious litigation, it has often resulted in a fresh bout of cases. The Delhi High Court has recently witnessed several cases where the litigants, especially those entangled in marital disputes, have wished to reject the compromise deed executed after the mediation.

Of late many parties have been approaching the High Court asking to get their compromise deeds quashed, claiming they were made "under duress/coercion". But, more worryingly, the retraction often comes after one of the parties has already availed the benefits of the compromise deed.

Noting a spurt in such cases, Justice S N Dhingra said a litigant complaining of coercion must be put to stringent test before the compromise is set aside. The judge further noted receipt of the benefits is a factor that should be kept in mind before quashing a deed. "One can understand the retraction of compromise, if no benefit is received. However, the compromises are retracted even after benefits are received by one party," noted the court in its recent order.

Justice Dhingra noted that approaching the court after drawing the benefits of an agreement meant pushing the other party, who chose to comply with the terms, to a state of utmost disadvantage and hence, equity must prevail in such cases so that no injustice is done. "The party has to prove before the court by cogent evidence that the compromise was not entered into with free will and consent and the same was entered into under duress and should be ignored," ruled Justice Dhingra while dismissing two similar petitions.

Backing the court's views, jurists said the sanctity of a compromise deed must be maintained and not challenged by a lame allegation without substance. Retired Delhi High Court judge R S Sodhi told Newsline, "The entire purpose of alternate dispute redressal system is defeated if courts entertain such pleas without concrete arguments. These deeds are the rule of the courts and must be respected."

Balkrishna Sharma, a trial court lawyer who has attended several mediation proceedings, said any litigant should not be allowed to retract from the mediation without strong reasons. "A deed is executed only after willful agreements are arrived at and that too before a judicial officer. Nobody should be at a disadvantage only because he or she opted to follow the orders and honoured the deed."

Mediation process

The mediator — usually a judge — makes the two parties sit across a table and help them resolve the issues amicably before a compromise deed is executed on the terms agreed by both.

Mediation is considered very useful in cases of marital discord and issues of alimony, divorce and compensation are easily sorted out. These compromise deeds are subsequently submitted in the court trying their cases and matters are disposed of accordingly. A similar process is followed at the Lok Adalats.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hc-makes-it-tough-to-go-back-on-mediation/656184/2

http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20100805/804/tnl-hc-makes-it-tough-to-go-back-on-medi_1.html