J&K HC Quashes Mother-In-Law’s Criminal Case After Son And Wife Agree To Dissolve Marriage By Mutual Consent

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could quash the challan and consequential proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise resolving the underlying matrimonial dispute.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the challan arising from FIR No. 0044/2023, together with the consequential proceedings.

It also directed

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the court concerned for information and compliance.

01Facts

The petitioner sought quashing of the challan arising from FIR No. 0044/2023, registered under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The challan was pending before the JMIC (City Judge), Jammu.

¶ 1

The complaint arose from matrimonial disputes between the petitioner’s son and respondent No. 2. During the proceedings, the son and respondent No. 2 entered into a compromise and agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.

¶ 2–3

The Registrar Judicial recorded both parties’ statements, confirming the compromise and its execution.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could quash the challan and consequential proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise resolving the underlying matrimonial dispute.

¶ 8, 12

ii.Whether continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, in light of the compromise between her son and respondent No. 2, would constitute an abuse of process or cause injustice.

¶ 12

03Law Applied

The Court applied the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, distinct from a criminal court’s statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, it stated that proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private or personal, the parties have fully settled it, and continuation would be unjust or an abuse of process; the nature and gravity of the offence must also be considered.

¶ 9

It also relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, which recognises that matrimonial and family disputes may be quashed after settlement where the ends of justice so require and the likelihood of conviction is remote.

¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 109 Section 307

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 Section 4

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 320 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court treated the case as arising from a private matrimonial dispute, rather than a category of serious or heinous offences for which compromise would ordinarily be insufficient.

¶ 11–12

It noted that the son and respondent No. 2 had settled their dispute and that both had confirmed the compromise before the Registrar Judicial. In those circumstances, the Court held that continuing proceedings against the petitioner, despite the settlement, would cause injustice and amount to an abuse of process; the non-compoundable character of the alleged offences did not prevent the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

¶ 3–4, 12