Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, in a detailed order delivered by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) to quash an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC against the petitioner-husband after the couple amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute and resumed cohabitation with their child.
The Court observed that once matrimonial disputes are settled amicably and parties have resumed living together, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law and serve no useful purpose. It held:
“It would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR when the parties have resolved their differences of their own free will and resumed cohabitation.”
Accordingly, FIR No. 230/2019, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Facts
The petitioner and the complainant were married on 27 April 2011 according to Muslim rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, one child was born. However, due to temperamental differences, the couple started living separately on 27 May 2018.
Subsequently, the complainant (wife) lodged FIR No. 230/2019 at Police Station Jamia Nagar under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC, alleging that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty and dowry-related harassment by the petitioner and his family.
During the pendency of the proceedings, both parties decided to resolve their differences amicably. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19 February 2025 was executed, recording the settlement terms, and the couple resumed cohabitation with their child from 23 February 2025.
In view of the reunion, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, relying on the amicable settlement and voluntary reconciliation between the parties.
Issues
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to quash a non-compoundable offence like Section 498A IPC on the ground of settlement between the parties.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute serves any purpose once the parties have reconciled and resumed cohabitation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that the marriage had been restored and both parties were now living together along with their child. The Settlement Deed dated 19 February 2025, annexed to the petition, demonstrated the bona fide resolution of disputes. It was argued that the complainant herself had no objection to the FIR being quashed and had made a voluntary statement confirming the same before the Court.
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon several Supreme Court precedents, particularly B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, to argue that criminal cases arising from matrimonial discord should be put to rest once the couple reconciles, as continuing such proceedings would defeat the objective of harmony and rehabilitation in marital relationships.
It was further contended that the High Court possesses wide powers to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice, especially where the allegations do not indicate a grave or heinous offence affecting public policy.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) appearing for the State submitted that since the dispute was matrimonial in nature and had been amicably resolved, the State had no objection to quashing the FIR.
The complainant-wife (Respondent No. 2), who was present in court, confirmed that she had voluntarily settled the dispute with her husband without any threat, coercion, or undue influence, and that she had resumed cohabitation with the petitioner. She further stated that she had no objection to the FIR being quashed.
The Investigating Officer from Police Station Jamia Nagar, SI Munfaij, identified both parties and corroborated that the settlement was genuine.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) must be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. It observed that offences arising out of matrimonial discord stand on a distinct footing, as the primary object of such prosecutions is to protect the spouse from cruelty and harassment, not to perpetuate hostility once reconciliation occurs.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that even non-compoundable offences under Section 498A IPC may be quashed when parties reach a genuine settlement, provided the same is not tainted with illegality or coercion and does not affect the larger public interest.
Justice Dudeja observed:
“When matrimonial disputes are resolved amicably and the parties resume normal marital life, continuing criminal prosecution would only lead to unnecessary hardship and defeat the purpose of reconciliation.”
The Court further cited the principle of restorative justice, emphasizing that the role of the court is not merely punitive but also facilitative of social harmony and rehabilitation of the family unit.
Precedent Analysis
- Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74) – The Supreme Court reiterated that once matrimonial disputes are amicably settled, courts should adopt a liberal approach in quashing proceedings under Section 498A IPC.
Relevance: Reinforced the idea that the High Court’s inherent power can be used even for non-compoundable offences if continuation serves no purpose. - Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58) – The Court held that disputes arising out of marriage are primarily personal and can be quashed if the parties reach a compromise.
Relevance: Applied here to justify quashing after reconciliation and cohabitation. - Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303) – Clarified that High Courts can quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is private in nature and settlement promotes justice.
Relevance: Provided the legal foundation for exercising inherent jurisdiction. - B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675) – Recognized the need to encourage settlements in matrimonial cases to preserve family life and prevent abuse of the criminal process.
Relevance: Cited as the leading precedent establishing judicial discretion in matrimonial quashing.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court took note of the voluntary nature of the settlement and the fact that the couple had resumed living together. Both parties were present in court and confirmed that the settlement was genuine and free from coercion.
Justice Dudeja reasoned that continuing the criminal trial would serve no purpose, as the complainant no longer wished to pursue the matter and both parties had decided to rebuild their relationship.
The Court emphasized that criminal law should not be used as a tool of vengeance when the underlying dispute has been resolved and the complainant herself desires closure. The restoration of harmony and the welfare of the child weighed heavily in the Court’s exercise of discretion.
It was also observed that Section 528 BNSS, like its predecessor Section 482 CrPC, is a repository of the court’s inherent power to intervene in exceptional cases to secure substantial justice and prevent unnecessary prosecution.
Conclusion
The Court held that:
- The parties had amicably resolved their differences through a Settlement Deed dated 19 February 2025.
- The complainant had resumed cohabitation with her husband and child, confirming that the reconciliation was genuine.
- The prosecution was matrimonial in nature and continuation would serve no legal or societal purpose.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and FIR No. 230/2019 dated 5 October 2019, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, was quashed.
The Court concluded:
“In the interest of justice and to promote harmony, the FIR is quashed as the parties have voluntarily resumed cohabitation and resolved their disputes without coercion.”
All pending applications were disposed of.
Implications
This judgment underscores the Delhi High Court’s progressive approach toward matrimonial disputes, reaffirming that criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC are not meant to perpetuate animosity once the parties reconcile. It strengthens the jurisprudence that the objective of such laws is protection, not punishment, and once peace is restored, courts should exercise discretion to quash proceedings to facilitate family unity.
The ruling also emphasizes the importance of judicial sensitivity in matrimonial matters, encouraging amicable resolutions over adversarial litigation.
FAQs
1. Can non-compoundable offences like Section 498A IPC be quashed by the High Court?
Yes. The High Court can quash such cases under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) if the dispute is matrimonial and both parties have amicably settled the matter.
2. What happens if the couple resumes cohabitation after a 498A FIR?
If the reconciliation is genuine and voluntary, the FIR and related proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of process and promote marital harmony.
3. Does the State have any objection in such cases?
Generally, the State does not object if the offence is private in nature and the settlement promotes justice, as seen in this case.