edited by: Pathikrit Sen Gupta
Last Update: February 04, 2023, 04:13 IST
The SC noted that it was clear that the parties had settled their disputes and reached a settlement agreement, following which a decree of mutual divorce was granted in 2012. Thereafter, the man approached the High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him. But his prayer was refused. The top court said this was done despite the agreement between the parties. (File photo: Reuters)
The apex court took note of the decree of mutual divorce granted to the parties in the light of the settlement in 2012 and said that no useful purpose would be served if the criminal proceedings against the man were allowed to continue.
The Supreme Court recently quashed criminal proceedings pending against the ex-husband of a woman on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.
Relying on a 2003 judgement, an apex court bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna granted relief to the ex-husband and quashed all proceedings initiated against him under sections 498A, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Gave and invoked his powers. Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
“…if the Court is satisfied that the parties have in fact settled the disputes amicably, may, with a view to securing the ends of justice, by exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India1 set aside the criminal proceedings between the parties can be quashed or even under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,” the bench also comprising Justice MM Sundaresh said.
The SC noted that it was clear that the parties had settled their disputes and reached a settlement agreement, following which a decree of mutual divorce was granted in 2012. Thereafter, the man approached the High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him. But his prayer was refused. The top court said this was done despite the agreement between the parties.
As per the Supreme Court order, the woman had already remarried and despite serving, she did not appear before him. Keeping in view the precedent and the fact that the person is an officer in the Border Security Force, which is a demanding job which requires him to serve in different parts of the country, the criminal proceedings pending against him were quashed Was.
“In the facts of the case, we do not think that any useful purpose would be served by continuation of the prosecution. The appellant, who is an officer in the Border Security Force and as per the requirement of the job, has to serve in different parts of the country, would be harassed said the Supreme Court.
read all latest india news Here
