The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that courts may exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings arising from private matrimonial disputes when a genuine, comprehensive settlement has been reached. This decision underscores the principle that not all criminal cases, particularly those rooted in personal conflict, must proceed to trial when the aggrieved party no longer seeks prosecution and justice can be secured through compromise.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, including Rahul and others, faced criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following a complaint by the wife, who is respondent No. 2. The marriage, solemnized in 2013, deteriorated due to temperamental differences, leading to separation in 2017. Despite the long-standing estrangement, the FIR was registered only in November 2022, nearly five years after the parties ceased cohabiting.
Procedural History
- 2017: Parties began living separately
- 2022: FIR No. 298/2022 registered at P.S. Gulabi Bagh, Delhi
- 2023: Parties obtained mutual consent divorce on 19.12.2023
- 2026: Petition filed seeking quashing of FIR before the Delhi High Court
- Chargesheet filed; charges not yet framed
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, arguing that the dispute had been fully resolved through a written settlement, including financial compensation, custody arrangements, and visitation rights, with the complainant explicitly withdrawing her desire to pursue criminal action.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) empowers the High Court to quash an FIR in a private matrimonial dispute after a voluntary, comprehensive settlement, even when chargesheet has been filed but charges have not been framed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India to argue that Section 498A IPC is frequently misused in matrimonial disputes and that courts must exercise caution before allowing such cases to proceed when the complainant has reconciled. They emphasized that the settlement included full and final financial discharge, custody arrangements, and visitation rights, rendering continuation of criminal proceedings unnecessary and oppressive.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the quashing. The complainant, represented by counsel, affirmed in court that she had no objection to quashing the FIR, had received the agreed settlement amount, and wished to move forward without further litigation. The Investigating Officer confirmed her identity and consent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the dispute and found it to be purely private, devoid of any public interest element. It noted that the complainant had not only withdrawn her complaint but had actively participated in structuring a binding settlement covering alimony, istridhan, maintenance, and child visitation. The Court held that the object of criminal law is not to perpetuate conflict where reconciliation has occurred.
"Continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially when the dispute does not involve any public interest and is primarily private in nature. In any case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges."
The Court invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary for securing the ends of justice. It distinguished this from cases involving heinous crimes or public harm, emphasizing that the power to quash is not limited to pre-chargesheet stages. The fact that chargesheet had been filed but charges not framed meant the matter was still at a preliminary stage, making quashing both procedurally permissible and substantively just.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Delhi High Court held that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS may be invoked to quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes after a genuine, comprehensive settlement, even post-chargesheet, provided the complainant consents and no public interest is involved. The FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was quashed, along with all consequential proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Can Override Criminal Proceedings
- Practitioners may now confidently move for quashing in matrimonial cases where parties have executed a documented settlement covering financial, custodial, and visitation terms
- Consent of the complainant is decisive; courts will not entertain quashing petitions where the victim objects
- The settlement must be comprehensive and voluntary, not coerced or partial
Chargesheet Does Not Bar Quashing
- The filing of a chargesheet does not extinguish the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS
- Courts will assess the stage of proceedings: if charges are not framed, quashing remains viable
- This aligns with the spirit of Sushil Kumar Sharma and Arnesh Kumar, reinforcing judicial restraint in non-public interest cases
Judicial Discretion Must Be Grounded in Justice, Not Formalism
- Courts must look beyond procedural milestones and evaluate the substance of reconciliation
- The focus should be on whether continuing prosecution serves any legitimate purpose
- This judgment discourages mechanical prosecution in family disputes and promotes restorative justice
