0

The proceedings relating to Section 498(a) quashed in view of compromise and settlement: The High Court of Calcutta

In view of the landmark judgement provided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, the matter between husband and wife relating to Section 498(a) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was arbitrarily solved through compromise and settlement. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta through the single bench led by Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta in the case of Sujit Kumar Ghosh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr(CRR/1001/2017).

The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the husband and the in-laws of the defacto complainant-opposite party. During the pendency of the proceeding, after talking with their common friends and family members, a compromise and settlement had been reached between the accused and the de facto complainant that had led to the initiation of Section 498(a). The couple has now decided to stay strong and lead a happy conjugal life.

The learned counsel on behalf of the defacto complainant-wife submitted the same as of the petitioners that a compromise had been reached between the private parties of all the disputes which had let to the filing of the First Information Report.

The counsel on behalf of the state said that the state would not come in the way if a compromise and settlement was arrived in between the private parties.

The court in view of the decision of Gian Singh, quashed the proceeding as the husband and wife have decided to bury the hatchet and stay together.

The High Court of Calcutta, after taking notice that a settlement and compromise has indeed arrived between the accused and the de facto complainant of all disputes that had led together to the initiation of criminal proceedings. The court directed “I quash the impugned proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement arrived at between the private parties. Accordingly, the revisional application and the connected application are disposed of.

Click here to read the judgement.

Judgement reviewed by- Pranav Vyas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Open chat