Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 59 (0.83 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
55. In a large number of cases have emanated from Sections 498A/406 IPC and where complaints have been filed and thereafter the parties have reconciled their differences and the wife has again started living with her husband happily and thereafter the complainant approached the Court for quashing the FIR filed by her under Sections 498A/406 IPC. Though the offence under Section 498A is not compoundable but in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice, the various High Courts in a very large number of cases have quashed the FIR under said sections. The FIRs have been quashed on the basis of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and number of other judgments. The inherent powers have been used by various High Courts in a very large number of cases because the complainant wife after filing of the complaint has again started living with her husband and children, that she is living happily with her husband. She further states that now she has no complaint from her husband or his relations. In case the proceedings are not quashed in a case of this nature, then the parties will be compelled to face criminal prosecution and trial in entirely unwarranted and wholly unnecessary litigation. The prosecution is not likely to succeed because the complainant herself wants the complaint to be quashed. If the proceedings are not quashed, then the parties are likely to indulge in making false statements on oath before the Court. Deliberately false and misleading pleadings are likely to be filed in the courts. The witnesses will not support the case of the complainant and consequently the valuable public time of the Court would be wasted in wholly unwarranted and unjustified litigation, consequently relegating other urgent matters to back seat. It would be wholly unnecessary to compel the parties to waste their time and money in totally frivolous and unwarranted litigation. The courts must adopt pragmatic attitude and approach in the larger public interest to prevent the abuse of the process or to secure ends of justice.