After Mutual Divorce, Madras HC Acquits Husband And In-Laws In 498A Case Following Wife’s Compromise

The petitioners, who were the husband and in-laws of the second respondent, challenged their conviction in C.C. No. 113 of 2019 for offences arising from a complaint alleging cruelty, criminal intimidation and a dowry demand.

The Magistrate convicted them on 27 August 2026 and imposed sentences including three years’ imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC and one year under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

The petitioners appealed, and suspension of sentence was granted, though sureties had not yet been produced.

The spouses had obtained a divorce by mutual consent and entered into a joint compromise.

The second respondent appeared before the High Court and stated that she had no objection to the conviction and sentence being set aside.

The judgment identifies the offences as Sections 498-A and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; it records that the sentences imposed included imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of that Act

It cites no precedent or specific statutory provision governing the High Court’s power to set aside the conviction on compromise, and articulates no separate legal test.

Its stated basis for relief is the parties’ compromise and the complainant’s position

The Court noted that the spouses had obtained a mutual-consent divorce and entered into a joint compromise, and that the complainant personally confirmed she had no objection to setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Considering those circumstances, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court’s judgment; it did not provide further statutory or precedential analysis

It directed that the joint compromise memo form part of the order and permitted the petitioners to withdraw the fine deposited with the Magistrate without awaiting the complainant’s no-objection

The criminal original petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.