Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 0112/2021 registered under Sections 498A, 406, 34, 323, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, including the husband of the complainant, after the parties amicably settled their marital dispute. The court observed that since the marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent and the full settlement amount of ₹16,00,000 was paid, continuing criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would be an abuse of process of law.
Facts:
The matter arose out of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner (husband) and respondent no. 2 (wife), who were married on 14 February 2020 as per Hindu rites. Subsequently, FIR No. 0112/2021 was lodged on 11 April 2021 at P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi. The complainant alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty due to dowry demands. She further accused the husband of forcing her into unnatural sexual acts, leading to the inclusion of Section 377 IPC.
The chargesheet was filed against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 406, 34, 323, and 377 IPC. However, during the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a comprehensive settlement through mediation.
A Mediation Settlement Deed dated 04 January 2024 was executed at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts. It was agreed that the parties would dissolve the marriage by mutual consent, and the husband would pay ₹16,00,000 to the wife in full and final settlement. The divorce decree was granted on 05 July 2025. All conditions of the settlement were fulfilled, including the final payment of the agreed amount.
Issues:
- Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, 34, 323, and 377 IPC, despite the mutual settlement and divorce, would amount to an abuse of process of law?
- Whether the High Court should quash the FIR in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners, including the husband and his relatives, contended that the matrimonial dispute had been amicably settled. They emphasized that all conditions of the settlement agreement were fulfilled, including the full payment of ₹16,00,000. The marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent and the complainant had expressed no objection to quashing the FIR. It was argued that in view of the settlement and absence of any subsisting grievance, continuing the criminal case would be unjust and a misuse of the court’s time.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The complainant (Respondent No. 2) was present in court and affirmed that the matter had been settled voluntarily, without any force, fear, or coercion. She submitted that she had no objection to the FIR being quashed. The Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State also supported the plea for quashing, given the amicable resolution between the parties.
Analysis of the Law:
The court examined the scope of its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (which replaces Section 482 CrPC) and considered whether the ends of justice would be served by terminating the proceedings. The judge emphasized that when a matrimonial dispute has been mutually resolved, and the complainant has no objection, the continuation of criminal prosecution—particularly in cases not involving heinous crimes—does not advance the cause of justice.
Precedent Analysis:
The court relied upon the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. Paragraph 61 of the judgment was quoted to highlight that courts are empowered to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial matters if the dispute has been resolved and continuing the trial would amount to injustice. The Supreme Court had held:
“The High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings… and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.”
Court’s Reasoning:
Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that the parties had ended their matrimonial relationship through mutual consent and fulfilled the settlement terms. Both parties confirmed the same before the court, and the State also had no objection. The court found no merit in continuing criminal proceedings in light of the amicable settlement.
“No useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR… In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed,” the court held.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0112/2021 registered under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC, along with consequential proceedings, on account of complete and voluntary settlement between the parties and dissolution of marriage. The judgment reaffirmed the court’s approach to encourage settlement in family and matrimonial disputes to reduce litigation and unnecessary criminal prosecution.
Implications:
This judgment reiterates the judiciary’s inclination towards facilitating the resolution of matrimonial disputes through amicable settlement. It reinforces the principle that once parties have mutually resolved their issues—especially in non-heinous offences—courts can exercise their inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in order to secure justice and prevent abuse of judicial process. It also clarifies that settlement-based relief can extend even to serious allegations, such as those under Section 377 IPC, when the complainant does not wish to pursue prosecution.
Referred Judgment:
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 – Referred to emphasize the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under its inherent powers when continuation of proceedings would result in abuse of process of law after parties have settled the dispute.
FAQs:
1. Can a criminal FIR under Section 498A be quashed after settlement?
Yes. If the parties mutually settle their dispute and the complainant has no objection, the High Court can quash the FIR to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
2. Is it possible to quash a criminal case involving serious allegations like Section 377 IPC?
Yes, the court can exercise its discretion to quash even serious charges if the complainant voluntarily withdraws and all settlement terms are fulfilled.
3. What legal precedent supports the quashing of criminal proceedings after settlement?
The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab held that continuation of criminal proceedings after mutual settlement may be an abuse of process and can be quashed to secure ends of justice.
