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

SC allows couples to settle marital cruelty cases

SC allows couples to settle marital cruelty cases

ByDhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Feb 23, 2013, 02.42 AM IST

In a first, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted settling of cases under Section 498A of IPC lodged by a woman against her husband and in-laws for alleged cruelty in her matrimonial home.

NEW DELHI: In a first, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted settling of cases under Section 498A of IPC lodged by a woman against her husband and in-laws for alleged cruelty in her matrimonial home.

Though it was enacted to protect women from harassment and cruelty, there has been judicial recognition of the fact that on several occasions, false complaints under Section 498A were filed to teach the husband and his relatives a lesson as these cases were non-compoundable and bail was difficult to get.

"We feel that though offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC is not compoundable, in appropriate cases, if the parties are willing and if it appears to the criminal court that there exists elements of settlement, it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation," a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana P Desai said.

"If there is settlement, the parties will be saved from the trials and tribulations of a criminal case and that will reduce the burden on the courts which will be in the larger public interest," said Justice Desai, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.

"During mediation, the parties can either decide to part company on mutually agreed terms or they may decide to patch up and stay together. In either case, for the settlement to come through, the complaint will have to be quashed. In that event, they can approach the high court and get the complaint quashed. If, however, they choose not to settle, they can proceed with the complaint. In this exercise, there is no loss to anyone," the bench said.

The judgment came in a case where a couple separated just two days after marriage as a row between the parents of the bride and groom resulted in a massive ego battle leading to a legal fight that lasted for 10 years.

During the time they were separated, the wife made several false complaints against her husband and his father, including a derogatory complaint that she was asked by her mother-in-law to sleep with her father-in-law. When the court found it to be false, she said it was an attempt to pressurize her husband to take her back.

The bench said, "This statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was made because the wife was anxious to go back to the husband. This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint, the wife has caused mental cruelty to the husband."

It said the high court erred by ruling that mental cruelty could be caused only if the husband and wife stayed under one roof. "Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof," Justice Desai said.

"In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable. This is what has happened in this case," she added.

The bench said years of false and frivolous complaints had irretrievably broken down the marriage between the parties. It asked the husband to pay Rs 15 lakh as alimony for grant of divorce.

"Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie," the court said.

"A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried up, there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree," it added.

dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com
 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-allows-couples-to-settle-marital-cruelty-cases/articleshow/18637125.cms?


full text @

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.in/2013/02/sc-allows-couples-to-settle-marital.html

http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.in/2013/02/sc-allows-couples-to-settle-marital.html