Supreme Law News

Court quahed FIR to promote ' Settlement

The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the husband's FIR, emphasizing that although future amicable resolution between the parties remained possible, the ongoing legal actions would only serve to exacerbate their enmity toward one another.

The Court observed that the complaint's "omnibus" claims are what prompted the FIR.

The accused, the petitioner's husband, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. asking for the complaint/respondent No. 2—the petitioner's wife—to have the FIR she filed dismissed for allegedly violating Sections 506 and 294 of the IPC.

"There is a reasonable probability that the parties will eventually reach an amicable settlement," ruled a bench of Justice Pranay Verma.

But, their hostility toward one another would not decrease in any way as long as legal actions like the current one are ongoing, and halting legal actions like the current one would increase the likelihood of a settlement between them.

The prosecution stated that the complainant claimed that the petitioner had been assaulting her, threatening her, and requiring money from her in order to get a divorce since 2017.

The petitioner refuted these claims, claiming that because of ongoing marital problems, they were untrue and done with malice.

The Court observed that although allegations of abuse and threats were made, they were vague as to the exact dates, times, and places of the episodes. The Court also stated, "It is evident that no particular complaints in that regard have been leveled, despite respondent No. 2's allegations that the petitioner insults her, threatens her, and demands money from her for a divorce in court as well as in any gathering of friends. Respondent No. 2 has not provided the incident's date, time, or location. It hasn't even been specified when the aforementioned events might have occurred. Respondent No. 2 has provided an abstract statement regarding the petitioner's actions.

The Court further noted that the couples were still lawfully wed, that the Family Court was still handling custody issues, and that a settlement by consent might be possible. According to the Court's ruling, it is evident from the current dynamics between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 2 filed the FIR solely with the intention of linking the petitioner to a different legal procedure in addition to the ongoing legal proceedings between them. It is on that count that she has simply made general accusations rather than making any particular ones.

As a result, the Court approved the petitioner's request and dismissed the formal complaint that had been filed against them for violating Sections 506 and 294 of the IPC.

Cause Title: X v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer & Anr.

JUDGEMENT

Your free access to Supreme Law News has expired

Supreme Law News Premium

Why should you subscribe?

* Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements

* Receive daily newsletters

* Receive real-time Telegram/Whatsapp news updates

* Download original judgments / orders / notifications / circulars, etc

* Enjoy exclusive entry fees to the Simplified series. (Webinars, seminars, masterclasses, etc.)

( special offer)

Subscribe Now

For further details contact:

Dr. Ajay Kummar Pandey

( LLM, MBA, (UK), PhD, AIMA, AFAI, PHD Chamber, ICTC, PCI, FCC, DFC, PPL, MNP, BNI, ICJ (UK), WP, (UK), MLE, Harvard Square, London, CT, Blair Singer Institute, (USA), Dip. in International Crime, Leiden University, the Netherlands )

Advocate & Consultant Supreme Court of India, High Courts & Tribunals.