S. 498A IPC cannot be compunded with an Agreement

Hi

I have a question on this related to my 498A case. A 498A case was filed on me in 2008. Now the trial is about to start. Now the girls side came forward saying to get this settled as this is a false 498A. But they are saying as part of settlement to transfer this case to lokayukata where they are saying this case will be quashed and also divorce given in one setting. As part of settlement package just give the gold ornamenets back of their to them and ours to us. No money involved.

So my question here is that is this case can be quashed in Lokayukata. Is it true and can be believed.

If there is mediated settlement agreement with the joint petition filed by the respondents along with the petitioners establish that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably, and Mutual Compromise between parties is reached, HC may quash it under Sec 482 (consequent to proof of the fulfilment of settlement agreement undertaken)

But otherwise it is not compundable.

In short, even Hon'ble HC won't have any objections if 'plaintiff scares the respondent with 498a and then reaches the settlements (although in reality respondent buckles to concede demands like ........

A Return back everything like dowry, given during marriage (actually its current value and not the old items),

B Return expenses of marriage/wedding made by plaintiff,

C and Give some money in damages due to all this and for future subsistance of plaintiff if she is genuine.

and then f**k-Off !!)  

If you look at it, If a wife (whether mischievous or genuine victim) limits herself to above items then, its actually looks like a reasonable and fair demand in compromise. Only both parties know exactly how much was given in A and B above.

@Ta jobs

The link which you have given doesn't exist any more.

So,if you have saved that article,whose link you have given,you may post it here.

@ Moderator / Admin.


Sub.: A protest post from @ tajobsindia

Since I like to follow majority of times what I so called preach here, the matter was related to Crl. Law Forum hence below full text was actually posted in right category and a link to inform Family Law readers here of that Crl. article I posted above first post here but it seems my time has about come in LCI as I noticed this is my first post which has been deleted by Lawyers Collective! However one can canvase Admin / Moderators to delete a post of mine but I challenge Lawyers Collective to show up enough guts to stop me as In-Person voicing my concern in private life ! Can you? You just can't..........

However, here is full text of what I posted this morning under right category – Criminal Law Forum which was deleted by LCI moderator

Title - IPC 498A cannot be compounded with an agreement

To those who think that S. 498A IPC is a marital issue, this can be a brutal reality check. The gravity of the crime may or may not be significant (most complaints are verbal sans material proof) and hardly satisfy the irrefutable nature of confidence in the mind of the ld. judges to convict the accused but, they must go through the rigueur of courtroom trial in order to get acquitted or convicted. There are no two ways about it.

Recently, large sections of Indian families in India, were relieved - and rightly so - when their court cases were quashed under S. 482 of the CrPC without proceeding through the trial because the parties of the suit had come to a mutual agreement. Usually such agreement is a divorce and alimony "settlement" wherein the husband gives out large amount of cash and property to secure his freedom from harassment from the state machinery and the slow grind of the court cases that can take years of his life. Sometimes it is also helpful to escape the trauma of arrest and incarceration in jail.

In three separate cases the Hon'ble Supreme court of India had allowed compounding of non-compoundable crimes, they are B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (1), Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI (2), and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others (3). Using the above precedents many marital crimes dramas were being compounded after errant wives were bored with courtroom procedures, legal maneuvers, and endless hearings.

Now the Hon'ble SC, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (4), has come to a conclusion that since S. 320 CrPC (see below) expressly forbids compounding of non-compoundable cases (IPC 498A is one such) they cannot do so and has requested the CJI to constitute a larger bench to look into the matter. What is remarkable to read, is that Hon'ble Justice Katju is second guessing himself with his earlier interpretations of CrPC 482 wherein he opined that the court can compound non-compoundable cases also, if it appears to help to meet the ends of justice.

So errant Indian women, think twice before you rush to the police and the courtroom claiming mental harassment, once instituted such cases cannot be taken back even if you change your mind. And aggrieved Indian husbands, if you are in the soup for S. 498A IPC, there is nothing else you can do but fight because, the cases have to come to a conclusion by going on trial. You cannot buy your way out of troubles, any more!

Authorities Re.:

1. B. S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/469138/

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. & Anr.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/393489/

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors.
https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1157676/

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/127380/

Section of The Code :

S. 320 CrPC. Compounding of offences.
https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/91933/

wotever u say,all 498A are getting "settled" by settlement.

there was one ruling i had read that cases out cruelty to wife cant be "settled" outside court.i am not sure if it meant that cruelty cases cant be settled thru "mediation and the settlement that follows".

why cant judiciary just do away with the settlement part in such cases and make trial compulsory,and also solve 498A cases in a limited time frame,say,of 1 year?

then only genuine women will file such cases,while liars will be afraid of getting exposed by filing false cases?

@ Roshni


Lordship Markandey Katju's conscious is very clear on which cases can be compounded and which shall not be compounded and that includes S. 498A IPC and seeing the "settlement" trend of HC he has put a rider now and it is not about true or false as you speak. It is called awakening of mother of all Courts as Hon’ble SC is Court of Records mind it and prudent Legal minds will appreciate this mind and I am not sure of YOUR mind.


Mostly S. 498a IPC does not pass the test of strict criminal trial due to 'quality of evidences" which prosecution side are not able to establish. You also know that it is a STATE trial so chances of buying a PP is not there as propaganda created by feminists like you say here. I am not sure reading personal case history is writers some of you have used in past S. 498a IPC or not and this suggestion besides the point S. 498a IPC is a tough nut to crack evidence wise is my experience which many a errant wife's fail and thus acquittal rate is much higher once bar of arrest by way f AB or Bail is crossed by husband side of family followed by delay in charge sheet filing and statement under S. 165 CrPC before a Magistrate Court etc. and evidence recording culminating into cross examination et al and by this time errant wife's loose the stream.


All above second para are neutral sentences and not making bald allegation just read any 10 S. 498a IPC cases of acquittal you will understand why it fails and when failure is writ large, HC read with wife's side offer "settlement" proposals which many a husband side accept looking at 'future' of their ladla and time spent all these years till date, so it is all fishy un-constitutional activity which was promoted by various HC’s and now it will not be that easy to compound S. 498a IPC of  those husband cases who want their wife’s hair turn grey trying to convict him and for general public a sense of reprieve will come as now charm of S. 498a IPC is no more there !

Just read S. 320 CrPC it clears all doubt on even any lay persons mind.