Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), quashing FIR No. 236/2023 registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC at P.S. Keshav Puram. The FIR was lodged by the wife alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. However, since the parties had amicably settled their disputes, obtained divorce by mutual consent, and the complainant-wife confirmed receipt of the full settlement amount along with a diamond ring, the Court held that continuing criminal proceedings would serve no purpose. The Court reiterated that matrimonial disputes, once settled, should be given finality.
Facts
The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife was solemnized on 10.02.2020 as per Hindu rites in Delhi. No children were born from the marriage. Due to temperamental differences, the parties started living separately from 24.05.2022.
Subsequently, the complainant lodged FIR No. 236/2023 on 24.02.2023, alleging physical and mental harassment for dowry. During proceedings, the parties opted for mediation and executed a written settlement on 30.01.2025 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts. The husband agreed to pay ₹13,50,000 along with a diamond ring as full and final settlement. Divorce was granted on 31.07.2025, and the settlement amount was paid.
At the hearing, both parties confirmed before the Court that they had resolved their disputes voluntarily, without coercion, and the complainant expressed no objection to quashing of the FIR.
Issues
- Whether FIRs lodged under Sections 498A/406 IPC arising out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed after an amicable settlement between the parties.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings in such cases serves any useful purpose once divorce and financial settlement have been finalized.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that since the marriage had broken down irretrievably and the parties had already settled all claims amicably through mediation, further prosecution would amount to an abuse of process. They highlighted that the entire settlement amount had been duly paid and divorce had been finalized. Therefore, the FIR and all consequential proceedings ought to be quashed in the interest of justice.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant-wife, appearing in person, confirmed receipt of the full settlement amount and diamond ring, and categorically stated that she had no objection to quashing of the FIR. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, also raised no objection, acknowledging that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and continuation of proceedings was unnecessary.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that while offences under Section 498A IPC are non-compoundable, the High Court has inherent power to quash such proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to secure the ends of justice.
The Court emphasized that when parties voluntarily enter into a settlement and confirm its implementation, insisting on a criminal trial would only prolong animosity and waste judicial resources. The principle is well established: in matrimonial matters, the primary objective is to resolve discord rather than perpetuate conflict.
Precedent Analysis
- Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74): Supreme Court recognized the importance of amicable settlement in matrimonial disputes.
- Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58: Held that even non-compoundable offences under Section 498A IPC can be quashed if parties settle disputes voluntarily.
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303: Affirmed that courts can quash proceedings if the offence is primarily personal in nature and the settlement promotes justice.
- B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC: Landmark judgment where the Supreme Court allowed quashing of Section 498A proceedings on settlement, laying the foundation for the doctrine of quashing matrimonial disputes.
These cases collectively guided the Court’s approach that justice requires respecting settlements in matrimonial matters.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that both parties were physically present, identified by their counsel and the Investigating Officer, and had voluntarily confirmed the terms of settlement. The complainant unequivocally expressed that she had no objection to quashing of the FIR.
Relying on precedents, the Court held that once the dispute has been amicably resolved, continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment rather than justice. The guiding principle is that matrimonial disputes should be put to rest to allow the parties to move on with their lives peacefully.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the petition, quashing FIR No. 236/2023 and all consequential proceedings. It emphasized that “in cases arising out of matrimonial differences, once parties have amicably resolved their disputes, the matter should be put to a quietus.” All pending applications were also disposed of.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s consistent approach of encouraging settlements in matrimonial disputes. It strengthens the principle that the object of Section 498A IPC is not to perpetuate litigation but to provide relief. Once disputes are resolved and financial settlements honored, criminal proceedings should not continue unnecessarily. The ruling provides clarity and assurance for parties seeking closure through mediation.
FAQs
Q1. Can an FIR under Section 498A IPC be quashed after settlement?
Yes, the High Court has inherent powers to quash such FIRs if parties have amicably settled and confirmed compliance with the settlement.
Q2. Is divorce necessary before quashing?
Not strictly, but in this case divorce had been finalized, strengthening the case for quashing as the matrimonial tie no longer existed.
Q3. Why did the Court quash the FIR despite it being non-compoundable?
Because Supreme Court precedents allow quashing of non-compoundable matrimonial offences when continuation of proceedings serves no purpose and settlement ensures justice.
