Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), quashing FIR No. 183/2023 registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC at P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi. The FIR, lodged by the wife, alleged dowry-related harassment. However, since the parties had amicably settled their disputes, finalized divorce, and the petitioner had fulfilled all financial and custodial obligations, the Court held that continuing criminal proceedings would serve no purpose. The Court emphasized that in matrimonial disputes, once parties resolve their issues voluntarily, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to prolong animosity.
Facts
The petitioner and complainant were married on 29.04.2007 as per Hindu rites. Two children were born from the marriage. Due to temperamental differences, they started living separately in March 2020.
In May 2023, the complainant filed FIR No. 183/2023 alleging cruelty and harassment for dowry under Sections 498A/406 IPC.
During the pendency of proceedings, the parties engaged in mediation at Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts. A Mediation Settlement dated 15.05.2024 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.03.2025 were executed. As per the settlement, the parties obtained divorce on 06.06.2024. The petitioner agreed to pay ₹20,00,000 to the complainant along with ownership rights in certain properties. Additionally, two demand drafts of ₹67,50,000 each were provided in favour of the children for creating fixed deposits (FDRs), while custody of the children was granted to the complainant.
At the hearing, both parties were physically present. The complainant confirmed voluntary settlement, receipt of amounts, and property rights. She expressed no objection to quashing of the FIR.
Issues
- Whether an FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC can be quashed after an amicable settlement between the parties.
- Whether divorce, financial settlement, and custody arrangements conclusively resolve matrimonial disputes to warrant quashing.
- Whether the Court can exercise inherent powers to prevent misuse of criminal law in such cases.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that since all disputes had been amicably resolved, with divorce finalized, settlement amounts paid, property ownership transferred, and financial security ensured for the children, continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust. He relied on the binding precedents of the Supreme Court that recognize the need to quash matrimonial FIRs once the parties have settled their differences in order to prevent unnecessary litigation and restore peace.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant-wife, represented in person, confirmed before the Court that she had received the full settlement amount of ₹20 lakhs, ownership of properties as agreed, and demand drafts in favour of her children. She stated clearly that the settlement was voluntary, without coercion, and 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 had been fully resolved.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that although Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the High Court retains inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings if continuing them would amount to abuse of process or would defeat the ends of justice.
The Court emphasized that matrimonial disputes are distinct from heinous offences affecting society at large. Once parties arrive at a voluntary and comprehensive settlement, it is in the interest of justice to put an end to criminal proceedings. The settlement in this case involved not only financial compensation to the complainant but also long-term financial security for the children, making it complete and effective.
Precedent Analysis
- Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74): Supreme Court recognized that matrimonial disputes should end upon settlement.
- Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58: Held that FIRs under Section 498A IPC can be quashed when parties have voluntarily settled their disputes.
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303: Clarified that quashing is permissible in cases involving personal disputes which do not impact public interest.
- B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC: Laid down the foundation that matrimonial FIRs can be quashed upon settlement, even if the offence is non-compoundable.
The Court applied these precedents to hold that quashing was appropriate..
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that both parties were present, identified, and voluntarily confirmed settlement terms. The complainant explicitly stated her consent to quash the FIR. Since the settlement had addressed all issues—divorce, finances, property division, and custody—the continuation of criminal proceedings would unnecessarily prolong acrimony.
The Court reasoned that quashing the FIR would not only prevent abuse of process but also serve the larger purpose of restoring peace between the parties. It reiterated that “cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus once parties have amicably settled.”
Conclusion
The Court allowed the petition, quashing FIR No. 183/2023 under Sections 498A/406 IPC and all consequential proceedings. It held that since the settlement had been executed fully and voluntarily, it was in the interest of justice to give finality to the dispute.
Implications
This ruling reinforces judicial recognition of settlements in matrimonial disputes. It provides assurance that courts will honour mediated agreements and allow parties to move forward without the shadow of prolonged criminal litigation. It also underscores the importance of ensuring financial and custodial security for children as part of such settlements.
FAQs
Q1. Can non-compoundable offences like Section 498A IPC be quashed after settlement?
Yes. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings if continuing them would be unjust and the dispute is purely matrimonial.
Q2. Is divorce necessary before quashing a matrimonial FIR?
While not mandatory, divorce strengthens the case for quashing, as it shows the marital tie is conclusively dissolved.
Q3. Why did the Court quash the FIR in this case?
Because the parties had divorced, financial settlement was completed, property rights transferred, and children’s future secured, making continuation of criminal proceedings unnecessary.
