Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR No. 849/2021 registered at P.S. Harsh Vihar, Delhi under Sections 498A, 406, 34, 323, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court held that since the parties had amicably resolved their disputes, obtained divorce, and the complainant-wife confirmed receipt of the entire settlement amount, further proceedings would be futile. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were therefore quashed.
Facts
The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife was solemnized on 09.02.2019 according to Hindu rites. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, they started living separately on 05.02.2021.
On 29.10.2021, the complainant lodged FIR No. 849/2021 alleging physical and mental harassment for dowry demands, wrongful retention of her articles, threats, and even physical assault. She further alleged that her six-month-old fetus was killed due to the acts of the petitioner. The FIR was registered under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Subsequently, the parties engaged in mediation at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, where they amicably settled their disputes. A Mediation Settlement dated 09.01.2025 was executed, under which petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay ₹6,40,000 to the complainant in full and final settlement. Divorce was granted on 22.07.2025.
At the hearing before the High Court, both parties were physically present and identified by their counsel and the Investigating Officer. The complainant confirmed that she had received the full settlement amount and voluntarily consented to quashing of the FIR.
Issues
- Whether an FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC, along with allied offences and the Dowry Prohibition Act, can be quashed after settlement between the parties.
- Whether matrimonial disputes, once resolved and divorce finalized, should continue to attract criminal prosecution.
- Whether the High Court’s inherent powers can extend to quashing non-compoundable offences in matrimonial contexts.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely matrimonial in nature and had been fully and finally resolved through mediation. They submitted that the complainant had received the entire settlement amount, divorce had been granted, and there was no subsisting grievance. Hence, further continuation of proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act would amount to abuse of process of law and would only perpetuate hostility rather than secure justice.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant-wife, represented through counsel and present in person, confirmed that the matter had been settled amicably. She categorically stated that she had received the settlement sum of ₹6,40,000, the divorce had been finalized, and 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 had been amicably resolved.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that while Section 498A IPC and allied offences are non-compoundable, the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash such proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
It emphasized that the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that cases arising out of matrimonial discord should be quashed once the parties have voluntarily resolved their disputes. Criminal law should not be used as a tool to perpetuate acrimony where parties have agreed to move on peacefully.
The Court observed that in this case, the settlement was voluntary, comprehensive, and fully implemented, leaving no occasion for continued prosecution.
Precedent Analysis
- Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74): Supreme Court emphasized 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 when parties settle disputes voluntarily.
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303): Recognized the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings in cases of private nature if settlement promotes justice.
- B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675): Laid down that FIRs under Section 498A IPC can be quashed post settlement to prevent abuse of process.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that all essential conditions for quashing were satisfied. Both parties were present, identified, and confirmed voluntary settlement. The complainant’s no-objection to quashing removed any adversarial stance. The State’s consent further supported the petition.
The Court reiterated the principle that “cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.” Continuing the FIR would achieve no purpose and would instead amount to harassment and misuse of criminal process.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing FIR No. 849/2021 under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential proceedings. It emphasized that once matrimonial disputes are resolved voluntarily and comprehensively, criminal cases arising therefrom should not be pursued.
Implications
This judgment reinforces judicial recognition of mediation and settlement in matrimonial cases. It provides assurance to litigants that genuine settlements will be respected and criminal prosecutions will not be used to perpetuate bitterness. It underscores that the purpose of criminal law in such contexts is to provide relief, not to prolong conflict, and encourages resolution through alternative dispute mechanisms.
FAQs
Q1. Can non-compoundable offences under Section 498A IPC be quashed after settlement?
Yes. The High Court has inherent powers to quash such offences when disputes are private, matrimonial in nature, and have been amicably resolved.
Q2. Why did the Court quash the FIR in this case?
Because the parties had divorced, the complainant received the full settlement amount, and she voluntarily consented to quashing of the FIR.
Q3. What principle did the Court reaffirm?
That matrimonial disputes, once settled, should be put to rest, and criminal law should not be misused to continue hostility.