Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after the parties entered into a full and final amicable settlement. Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed:
“In view of the settlement between the parties… no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR.”
The Court held that continuation of proceedings would be contrary to the interest of justice, considering the mutual resolution and dissolution of marriage between the parties.
Facts
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 122/2014 registered at Shahbad Dairy Police Station, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC. The FIR was lodged by the wife (Respondent No. 2) against her husband (Petitioner No. 1) and his family members, alleging mental and physical harassment for dowry.
The couple got married on 28 June 2012 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. However, due to temperamental differences, they started living separately from 8 August 2013. The complainant alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry and that the sister-in-law (Petitioner No. 3) had even tried to poison her.
A chargesheet had already been filed during the course of investigation.
Subsequently, both parties reached an amicable settlement and executed a formal Settlement Deed on 31 January 2025. As part of the agreement, the husband and wife mutually consented to divorce on 2 June 2025 and the husband paid ₹2,00,000 in full and final settlement, along with the return of articles.
Issues
- Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC should be quashed where the parties have amicably settled the matrimonial dispute?
- Whether continuing criminal prosecution in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the continuation of criminal proceedings served no meaningful purpose since all disputes had been amicably resolved. They relied on the Settlement Deed dated 31 January 2025, wherein all terms—including payment of ₹2,00,000 and return of articles—had been fulfilled. The parties had obtained a mutual divorce decree on 2 June 2025. Respondent No. 2 was personally present in Court and confirmed the settlement voluntarily, without any coercion or threat.
It was submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would defeat the very purpose of the settlement.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent No. 2 (the complainant) appeared in person and confirmed the veracity of the Settlement Deed. She unequivocally stated that the matter had been resolved without pressure or inducement and expressed no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also submitted that in light of the settlement, the State had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is in pari materia with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. It reiterated the principle that the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where it was held that:
“The High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings… despite settlement and compromise.”
The Delhi High Court applied this test and found that the settlement was genuine and complete, and that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust.
Precedent Analysis
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
- The Supreme Court observed that in matrimonial matters involving personal disputes, if the parties settle the matter amicably, the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash proceedings.
- The case emphasized that such quashing is permissible even in offences which are not compoundable, where the offence primarily affects the victim and not society at large.
This precedent was directly relied upon to uphold the principle that the High Court may quash FIRs involving matrimonial disputes if the parties have settled the matter and continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court considered the following:
- The marriage between the parties had been dissolved by mutual consent.
- The Settlement Deed had been fully acted upon, including monetary settlement and return of articles.
- The complainant was physically present and gave her unequivocal consent to the quashing of the FIR.
- The Additional Public Prosecutor also raised no objection to the quashing of the proceedings.
Relying on Gian Singh, the Court concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of process and would defeat the objective of promoting amicable resolution of matrimonial disputes.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC. The petition was allowed, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
The Court reaffirmed the principle that in matrimonial disputes where the parties have genuinely resolved the matter, continuation of criminal proceedings is neither necessary nor desirable.
Implications
- Judicial Endorsement of Compromise: Encourages out-of-court settlements in matrimonial disputes involving criminal allegations, when they are genuine and voluntary.
- Clarity on Section 528 of BNSS: Reinforces the parallel power under BNSS to quash criminal proceedings akin to Section 482 CrPC.
- Relief for Accused in Dowry Cases: Serves as a precedent for quashing proceedings in similar dowry harassment cases after settlement.
Case(s) Referred
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
- This was the only precedent relied upon. The Supreme Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings despite settlement in matrimonial matters could amount to an abuse of process and could be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
FAQs
Q1. Can FIRs under dowry harassment sections be quashed after mutual settlement?
Yes, the High Court can quash FIRs under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC where the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and continuation would amount to an abuse of process.
Q2. What legal provision allows for such quashing?
The High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC.
Q3. Is the consent of the complainant necessary for quashing?
Yes. The Court will not proceed with quashing unless the complainant voluntarily agrees and confirms the settlement before the Court.
