Tajobsindia (Senior Partner ) 27 March 2011

S. 498A IPC cannot be compounded with an agreement

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/

Reply Follow

2 Replies

(Guest)

@Rajeev Rakheja- In UP as AB provisions are not in place so 498A stay of arrest is granted by Allahabad High court and referred to Mediation and if in mediation a compromise is arrived at the memorandum is drafted and the case is listed in HC and is quashed....so isnt what you are referring as Supreme court judgements contradictory to the trend followed by HC.

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner ) 28 March 2011

@ Mithilesh

Yes, kindly read down S. 320 CrPC which Lordship Markandey Katju referred to while remanding cases to a larger Bench for further direction. Atleast his conscious is very much clear on what cases can be compounded and what cases should not be compounded. It is a good path he has created to dilute atleast S. 498a IPC in future is my view reading his above re. Judgment.