The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on a woman for misusing the court process by refusing to withdraw a case filed against her husband and his family despite reaching a settlement and obtaining a divorce decree by mutual consent.
While directing the woman to pay the costs, the Court noted that she was earlier awarded a settlement amount of ₹50 lakh from her former husband.
The man and his family members had filed two separate petitions – one to quash a first information report (FIR) registered in 2018 on the complaint of the woman, and a criminal revision petition against the charges framed against them by the trial court in the case.
They were charged for causing miscarriage without consent, cruelty and other offences under the India Penal Code (IPC).
The grievance of the petitioners was that after the divorce decree was passed, the woman refused to withdraw the case against them.
The woman argued that despite agreeing to withdraw all the cases she filed against the petitioners, the case under Section 313 (non-consensual miscarriage) IPC could not be withdrawn as it is a non-compoundable offence.
The Court allowed both pleas, noting that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the husband even after a compromise was reached, was frowned upon by the apex court as misuse of the legal process.
With respect to the allegation against the husband and his elderly parents under Section 313 IPC, the Court noted,
“considering the fact that the respondent No. 2 (wife) got her Medical Termination of Pregnancy way back in the year 2009, it is difficult for this Court to perceive that the aforesaid termination of pregnancy through legal procedure, from a reputed hospital can be stretched to the extent to wrap it as an offence of causing miscarriage without the respondent No.2’s consent falling under Section 313 of IPC and that too after a period of around 12 years.”
Regarding cruelty and other alleged offences, the Court said that these were omnibus allegations.
“So far as the other offences u/s 498A, 323, 506, 34, 325 of IPC are concerned, it is found that omnibus allegations have been made by the complainant and further considering the fact a decree of divorce by mutual consent has already been passed between the parties, the respondent no.2 was bound to withdraw the same but she deliberately, with ulterior motives refused to withdraw even that part of the charge-sheet.”
