498a/406

Some lawyers are only sharing contact numbers rather giving proper advice

This is not expected in this forum as per forum rule.

Is this forum is a marketing site ??????????????????

Please read each of my posts carefully in the following links.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Fight-against-misuse-of-498a-ipc--103100.asp#.U6gslUCm9dg

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Best-way-to-fight-against-false-498a-103111.asp#.U6gsRkCm9dg

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/details.asp?mod_id=104564&offset=1

For the purpose of quashing the FIR the wife/woman has to just make statement on oath in the High Court about compromise between both parties for all matrimonial disputes, her consent for the compromise agreed and made in to a MOU as well the request for quashing of FIR by the husband/man and her consent for the same is given by her without any force or undue influence but with her free will.

There need not to mention by the wife/woman about the validity of the complaint made by her to the Police on the basis of which FIR was registered, thus there will be no offence of perjury on her part by agreeing for quashing of FIR.

As far recovery of 20% balance amount is concerned that will be given to her in the courtroom itself (High Court) as Bank Draft by the husband/man and unless that is given to her the High Court will not allow the application for quashing the FIR, after all the courts are there to help resolve the disputes between husband and wife amicably. 

Thanks,Mr Mahajan for guidance but someone from legal fratinity has told me that High Court also can also refused for quash the FIR if in FIR prima facie  crime are committed and in one case(Dr Baljeet  Singh v/s State)  in a matrimonial dispute despite the MOU FIR did not quashed by High court Delhi

I can not comment on the advise given by other lawyer, but for Dr. Baljeet Singh vs State case I can state that that was distinguishable case from other similar cases, because in this case the wife/complainant did not appear in the High Court to admit her compromise after the registration of FIR, the compromise in question was done in 2011 and the FIR registered in 2013, the circumstance in this case were different from the other cases where the compromise is reached, in this case there may be the issue of fraud on the part of the husband for not going for a genuine compromise that was to be investigated by the IO of the police as the FIR was at investigation stage only and final report not yet made by the IO to the trail magistrate court. There cannot be any assumption made by the IO that that the compromise between the parties in 2011 was fulfilled by both parties in totality and it was not face wash process done by the husband to avoid the charges of cruelty and dowry demand later on. The Hon'ble High Court was not convinced by the Husband about the genuineness of the compromise as the wife failed to appear in the court to show and prove it.

What I had suggested in my reply was that the compromise between the parties that is used for quashing of FIR has to be genuine in nature that only can be shown and proved by the wife who has not only admit this compromise as made by he free will and without any force and fraud but also give statement on oath with regard to this fact, recorded and presented in the High Court.