Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), quashing FIR No. 572/2020 registered at P.S. Nand Nagri under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The FIR had been lodged by the wife against her husband and in-laws alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. The Court held that since the parties had amicably settled their disputes, obtained divorce by mutual consent, and the complainant-wife confirmed receipt of the entire settlement amount and articles, continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were therefore quashed.
Facts
The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and the complainant-wife was solemnized on 29.04.2018 as per Hindu rites in Delhi. No children were born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, the parties began living separately on 24.06.2019.
On 03.09.2020, the complainant lodged FIR No. 572/2020 alleging physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands. The FIR named petitioner no. 1 (husband) and his family members as accused.
Subsequently, the parties participated in counselling before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, where they amicably resolved their disputes. A written settlement dated 22.10.2024 was executed, under which petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay ₹6,20,000 to the complainant in full and final settlement. The settlement also provided for return of all articles. On 13.02.2025, the parties obtained divorce by mutual consent.
At the hearing, both parties were physically present and identified by their counsel and the Investigating Officer. The complainant confirmed voluntary settlement, receipt of the agreed amount, and return of articles, and stated she had no objection to quashing of the FIR.
Issues
- Whether FIRs under Sections 498A/406 IPC, which are non-compoundable, can be quashed on the basis of amicable settlement between parties.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes, after divorce and full settlement, amounts to abuse of process of law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners submitted that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, and all disputes had been amicably resolved before the Family Court. Divorce had been finalized, the entire settlement amount of ₹6,20,000 was paid, and articles were returned. In such circumstances, insisting on continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 498A/406 IPC would serve no purpose and would amount to harassment. They relied on binding precedents of the Supreme Court which recognize the power of High Courts to quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial cases once parties settle voluntarily.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant-wife, represented through counsel and present in person, confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, without coercion, and that she had received the agreed payment and return of articles. She expressed no objection to quashing the FIR. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also raised no objection, acknowledging that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and had been amicably resolved.
Analysis of the Law
The Court observed that while Section 498A IPC is a non-compoundable offence, the High Court retains inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.
It emphasized that matrimonial disputes are distinct from heinous crimes against society at large. Once parties resolve their differences amicably and confirm compliance with the terms of settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile. Judicial precedents consistently support quashing of such FIRs to ensure closure and peace for the parties.
Precedent Analysis
- Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74) – Supreme Court recognized the importance of amicable settlement in matrimonial cases.
- Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58 – Held that even non-compoundable offences under Section 498A IPC can be quashed once disputes are settled.
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – Clarified that High Courts can quash criminal cases arising out of private disputes if settlement promotes justice.
- B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 – Laid down that FIRs under Section 498A IPC may be quashed in the interest of justice after settlement between spouse..
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that both parties had confirmed settlement and divorce, and the complainant had unequivocally expressed no objection to quashing the FIR. Since the dispute was purely matrimonial in nature, further prosecution would not only be purposeless but would also defeat the objective of securing peace between the parties.
It reaffirmed that “cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement.” The Court emphasized that the inherent power to quash should be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 572/2020 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC along with all consequential proceedings. The judgment reiterated that once matrimonial disputes are resolved voluntarily, courts must encourage finality and closure rather than prolong litigation.
Implications
This ruling strengthens judicial endorsement of settlements in matrimonial disputes. It affirms that High Courts can quash even non-compoundable offences under Section 498A IPC when disputes are amicably resolved. The decision reassures litigants that genuine settlements will be respected, ensuring peace and allowing parties to move forward without the burden of prolonged criminal proceedings.
FAQs
Q1. Can non-compoundable offences under Section 498A IPC be quashed after settlement?
Yes. The High Court has inherent powers to quash proceedings if continuation would be unjust and the dispute is purely matrimonial.
Q2. Why did the Court quash the FIR in this case?
Because the parties had amicably settled, obtained divorce, the complainant received the agreed settlement, and she expressed no objection to quashing.
Q3. What principle did the Court reaffirm in this judgment?
That matrimonial disputes, once settled amicably, should be put to rest, and criminal law should not be misused to perpetuate acrimony.
