Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Dowry Case After Parties Reach Settlement: Bitan Sengupta & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (26 March 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 258
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a criminal case related to dowry harassment be quashed if the parties involved reach a settlement, especially after obtaining a mutual divorce? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, where the appellants, previously convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sought to have their convictions overturned based on a settlement reached with the complainant. The bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a written complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, leading to the registration of Case No. 554 PS Durgapur. The appellants were accused of offences under Sections 498A, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations against the appellants included demanding dowry, and upon non-fulfillment, assaulting and torturing Respondent No. 2. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and charges were framed against the appellants.

The Judicial Magistrate found the appellants guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, while Appellant No. 2 received six months of simple imprisonment. They were acquitted of the other charges. The appellants then appealed to the Sessions Court, which dismissed their appeal on 21 September 2016.

During the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Court, the appellants and Respondent No. 2 reached a compromise. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 22 December 2015 was executed, based on which they obtained a mutual divorce under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act in Mat. Suit No. 389/2015 on 4 April 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, aggrieved by the Sessions Court’s decision, filed a revision application before the High Court of Kolkata. The High Court, in its order dated 12 September 2017, upheld the findings of the Sessions Court and dismissed the revision petition. The High Court concurred with the lower court’s decision, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. It states: “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections deal with criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation, respectively.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: These sections prohibit the giving or taking of dowry.
• Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act: This section deals with divorce by mutual consent.

The Supreme Court also considered the spirit of the law as laid down in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they had reached a settlement with Respondent No. 2, who is the complainant in the case. They submitted that both parties had decided to live peacefully and had obtained a mutual divorce based on the settlement. They further stated that Respondent No. 2 had no grievances against them and wanted them to be acquitted. Both parties had also undertaken not to engage in any further litigation and to withdraw all pending complaints against each other.

The appellants relied on the judgment of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. to argue that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offences, especially given that the parties had already acted upon the settlement by obtaining a mutual divorce.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in emphasizing the practical reconciliation and mutual agreement between the parties, supported by a formal divorce, as a basis for quashing the criminal proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the implicit issue was whether the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings given the settlement between the parties, especially after they had obtained a mutual divorce.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [CITATION NOT FOUND] – The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to emphasize that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offences, particularly when the parties had acted on the settlement by obtaining a mutual divorce.

Judgment

The Court viewed the authority as follows:

The Supreme Court relied on B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.* to support its decision that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offences. The Court emphasized that the settlement had been acted upon by the parties, who had obtained a mutual divorce.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the parties had reached a settlement and had acted upon it by obtaining a mutual divorce. The Court also emphasized the need to promote harmony and peace between the parties, especially in matrimonial disputes. The spirit of the law, as laid down in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., also weighed heavily on the Court’s decision, which favored resolving disputes amicably.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The parties had settled their dispute and obtained a mutual divorce.
• Respondent No. 2 had no further grievances against the appellants.
• The spirit of the law, as interpreted in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., favored amicable resolution of disputes.

The court stated, “In the aforesaid circumstances and going by the spirit of the law laid down by this Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr., we are of the opinion that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offences.”

The Court further noted, “It is, more so, when the settlement between the parties, who were husband and wife, was even acted upon as the parties took mutual divorce on that basis.”

The Court concluded, “We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of conviction passed against the appellants.”

There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Criminal cases related to dowry harassment can be quashed if the parties reach a settlement, especially if they have also obtained a mutual divorce.
• The Supreme Court favors amicable resolution of matrimonial disputes.
• High Courts should consider settlements between parties and compound offences, particularly when the settlement has been acted upon.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of conviction passed against the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings, particularly those arising from matrimonial disputes, can be quashed if the parties have reached a settlement, especially when a mutual divorce has been obtained based on that settlement. This decision reinforces the principle that courts should encourage amicable resolutions and not prolong litigation when parties have reconciled and settled their differences. This is in line with the position of law as laid down in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions against the appellants, emphasizing the importance of settlements in matrimonial disputes, particularly when they lead to mutual divorce. The Court’s decision is based on the spirit of the law and the need for amicable resolutions, as previously highlighted in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.