Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code after noting that the matrimonial dispute between the parties had been fully and voluntarily resolved. Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and might instead foster further animosity. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were therefore quashed.
Facts
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of an FIR lodged by the wife against her husband and in-laws. The parties were married on 8 December 2016 as per Hindu rites, but began living separately from 12 July 2017 due to incompatibility. The wife initiated criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC alleging cruelty and misappropriation of stridhan.
During the pendency of litigation, with the intervention of family members and well-wishers, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 20 September 2022. They agreed to a total settlement of ₹12,00,000 to be paid in three instalments by the husband to the wife in full and final settlement of all claims, including maintenance (past, present, and future), stridhan, and permanent alimony. The parties also obtained a mutual consent divorce decree on 31 May 2023, and the wife undertook to withdraw all pending proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC can be quashed when the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
- Whether such quashing is permissible in view of the voluntary settlement and absence of coercion.
- Whether continuing criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely matrimonial and had been resolved amicably without coercion. They relied on the MOU dated 20 September 2022 and the mutual consent divorce decree dated 31 May 2023. They argued that the wife had received the entire settlement amount, withdrawn all other cases, and had no objection to quashing the FIR. Citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, they submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would be futile.
Respondent’s Arguments
The wife (respondent no. 2), appearing in person, confirmed the settlement was voluntary and free from undue influence. She acknowledged receipt of the settlement amount and withdrawal of all cases. She expressly stated that she had no objection to quashing the FIR. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, also submitted that it had no objection to the FIR being quashed.
Analysis of the Law
Section 528 BNSS, 2023 allows the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh held that courts may quash proceedings in cases predominantly of a civil or matrimonial nature if parties have settled amicably, provided such offences are not heinous or involving moral turpitude. In Narinder Singh, the Court laid down guidelines for exercising this power, emphasising voluntary settlement, absence of coercion, and consideration of the nature of the offence.
Precedent Analysis
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – Held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in non-compoundable offences involving matrimonial disputes if parties have amicably settled, as continuing such proceedings serves no purpose.
- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 – Provided criteria for quashing proceedings post-settlement, stressing that it must be in the interest of justice and not against public policy.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The settlement was voluntary, without coercion.
- The wife had received the agreed sum and withdrawn all pending litigations.
- The marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent.
- The State had no objection to quashing.
Given these factors and in light of the Supreme Court precedents, continuing proceedings would unnecessarily prolong animosity and waste judicial resources. The matter being purely matrimonial, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 385/2019 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that matrimonial disputes settled amicably can be brought to a legal closure by quashing criminal proceedings, thereby reducing unnecessary litigation and allowing parties to move on. It underscores judicial support for mediation and voluntary settlements in family matters.
FAQs
1. Can an FIR under Section 498A IPC be quashed if the parties settle?
Yes, courts can quash such FIRs if the settlement is voluntary, all terms are fulfilled, and the offence is of a personal nature, as per Gian Singh and Narinder Singh.
2. Does mutual consent divorce strengthen a quashing petition?
Yes, it shows finality in the relationship and compliance with settlement terms, which supports the case for quashing.
3. Will the State oppose quashing in all matrimonial cases?
Not necessarily. If the matter is purely matrimonial, settled amicably, and without coercion, the State often does not oppose quashing.
