Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute, holding that once spouses have amicably settled all disputes, obtained divorce by mutual consent, and complied with settlement terms, continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the Court quashed the FIR registered for cruelty and criminal breach of trust, observing that courts must encourage genuine settlements in matrimonial cases to secure the ends of justice .
Facts
The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnised in May 2015 according to Hindu rites in Delhi. One child was born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, the parties began living separately from July 2016.
In October 2018, the wife lodged an FIR at Police Station Hari Nagar alleging physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands. The FIR invoked offences relating to cruelty, criminal breach of trust and common intention. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed not only against the husband but also against his parents. Subsequently, by an order passed in May 2024, the trial court discharged the parents of the husband, leaving the proceedings pending only against him.
During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation. Before the Delhi Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari Courts, they arrived at a comprehensive settlement, which was reduced into writing in August 2025. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in November 2025. The husband paid the entire agreed settlement amount of ₹35 lakhs to the wife. It was also agreed that custody of the minor child would remain with the mother, with no visitation rights to the father.
On the basis of this settlement, the husband approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Issues
The central issue before the High Court was whether criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord, including non-compoundable offences relating to cruelty and breach of trust, could be quashed in exercise of inherent powers once the parties had amicably settled their disputes and fully acted upon the settlement. The Court also examined whether continuation of such proceedings would serve any useful purpose after dissolution of marriage and complete settlement.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely matrimonial in nature and had no societal or public ramifications warranting continuation of criminal prosecution. It was argued that the parties had voluntarily settled all their disputes without coercion, fear or undue influence, and that the settlement had been fully implemented. The petitioner emphasised that the marriage itself had been dissolved by mutual consent and that the complainant-wife had unequivocally expressed her no-objection to quashing of the FIR. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings would only perpetuate bitterness and amount to abuse of judicial process.
Respondent’s arguments
The respondent-wife appeared in person before the Court and confirmed the settlement. She stated that she had received the entire settlement amount as agreed and that the compromise was voluntary and without any pressure. She categorically stated that she had no objection if the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. The State also conveyed that it had no objection to the quashing of proceedings in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the scope of inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. It reiterated that although certain offences are non-compoundable under criminal law, courts are not powerless to quash proceedings where the dispute is essentially private, personal and matrimonial in character, and where the parties have genuinely resolved their differences.
The Court highlighted that matrimonial disputes stand on a distinct footing, as their continuation after settlement often serves no penal purpose and only prolongs acrimony. The guiding consideration is whether quashing would advance justice rather than defeat it.
Precedent analysis
The High Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court decisions recognising the importance of amicable settlement in matrimonial disputes. Reference was made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which holds that criminal proceedings involving personal disputes may be quashed when parties settle. The Court also relied on Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, which emphasise that courts should encourage settlement in matrimonial matters and bring quietus to criminal litigation once parties decide to part ways amicably. These principles were reaffirmed in later decisions recognising compromise as a legitimate ground for quashing to secure justice.
Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that both parties were physically present and identified by their counsel as well as the investigating officer, and that the wife had unequivocally confirmed the settlement and receipt of the full amount. There was no allegation of coercion or pressure. The Court observed that the marriage had already been dissolved by mutual consent and all ancillary issues including alimony and child custody had been conclusively resolved.
In these circumstances, the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to unnecessary harassment. Emphasising that courts should not be used as instruments to perpetuate private vendettas once disputes are resolved, the Court concluded that it was a fit case for exercise of inherent powers to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings .
Conclusion
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR registered under provisions relating to cruelty and criminal breach of trust and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The Court held that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice in view of the complete and voluntary settlement between the parties. The petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the consistent judicial approach that matrimonial disputes, once genuinely settled, should not be allowed to linger in the criminal justice system. It underscores the High Court’s role in facilitating closure and reducing unnecessary criminal litigation where personal relationships have irretrievably broken down but disputes have been resolved through lawful settlement. The ruling provides reassurance to litigants that courts will respect and give effect to bona fide compromises in matrimonial matters.
Case law references
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab – Recognised power of High Courts to quash criminal proceedings involving private disputes after settlement.
- Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi – Held that matrimonial disputes should be put to quietus when parties settle.
- B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana – Encouraged quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases to prevent abuse of process.
- Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka – Reiterated importance of amicable settlement in personal disputes.
FAQs
1. Can FIRs for cruelty and dowry harassment be quashed after settlement?
Yes. High Courts can quash such FIRs if the dispute is matrimonial, private in nature, and the settlement is genuine and voluntary.
2. Is divorce by mutual consent necessary for quashing?
Not mandatory, but it strongly supports the conclusion that disputes have been finally resolved.
3. Will quashing affect future rights of parties?
No. Once quashed, criminal proceedings end, but rights flowing from the settlement and divorce remain intact.