The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that criminal proceedings arising from private matrimonial disputes may be quashed upon amicable settlement, even where serious offences like Section 498-A and 377 IPC are alleged, provided conviction is remote and continuation would amount to abuse of process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Harsh Gangwani, and the complainant, his wife, were married on 28.12.2021. The couple resided in Mumbai after marriage. The complainant alleged that the petitioner developed a habit of alcohol consumption, engaged in frequent quarrels, withheld domestic necessities, pressured her to demand property from her parents, and subjected her to mental and physical harassment. She further alleged that the petitioner compelled her into unnatural intercourse, attempted to force an abortion, threatened to viralize private videos, and defamed her character by questioning her fidelity. The dispute escalated after the birth of their son, Vaidik, on 06.12.2022, over expenses related to delivery. The complainant was sent to her parents’ residence in Raipur on 21.02.2023 under the pretext of health concerns, after which her belongings and those of her child were sent to her brother’s address. The petitioner allegedly refused to bring her back.
Key Facts
- Marriage solemnized on 28.12.2021
- Complainant lodged written complaint with Mahila Thana, Raipur, on 20.10.2023
- FIR No. 124/2023 registered under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC on 20.10.2023
- Complainant later withdrew allegations against mother-in-law due to her age and illness
- Final Report No. 83/2024 filed on 08.08.2024, charging petitioner under Sections 498-A and 377 IPC
- Cognizance taken by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, on 09.08.2024
- Criminal Case No. 14209/2024 initiated
- Petitioner and complainant filed joint application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent
- Family Court, Raipur, granted divorce decree on 08.08.2024
- Complainant executed affidavit dated 03.03.2026 affirming full and final settlement, withdrawal of all allegations, and no objection to quashing of FIR
- Complainant’s counsel expressed no objection to anticipatory bail during hearing
Procedural History
- 28.12.2021: Marriage solemnized
- 21.02.2023: Complainant sent to parents’ home in Raipur
- 20.10.2023: FIR No. 124/2023 registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur
- 08.08.2024: Final Report No. 83/2024 filed; Family Court granted mutual consent divorce
- 09.08.2024: Cognizance taken by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur
- 14209/2024: Criminal case pending before trial court
- 03.03.2026: Complainant executed affidavit confirming settlement
- 24.03.2026: Petition heard and decided by Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of:
- FIR No. 124/2023
- Final Report No. 83/2024
- Order taking cognizance dated 09.08.2024
- Entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 14209/2024
on grounds of settlement, absence of public interest, and abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute after the parties have amicably settled their differences, obtained a decree of mutual consent divorce, and the complainant has unequivocally withdrawn all allegations and expressed no objection to termination of proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the dispute was purely personal and civil in nature, devoid of any public interest element. He relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 to establish that where matrimonial disputes are resolved through mutual consent divorce and full settlement, the High Court may quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process. He submitted that the complainant’s affidavit dated 03.03.2026 and her conduct before the Family Court demonstrated irrevocable withdrawal of support for prosecution, rendering conviction impossible. Continued proceedings, he argued, would cause undue harassment and violate the principles of justice.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not dispute the fact of settlement or the divorce decree. The learned Panel Lawyer conceded that the matter was personal in nature and did not involve public interest or societal harm. No opposition was raised to the quashing prayer.
For Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)
The complainant’s counsel fully supported the petitioner’s submissions, confirming the execution of the affidavit dated 03.03.2026, wherein the complainant affirmed complete settlement, financial closure, withdrawal of all allegations, and explicit consent to quash the FIR. She also expressed no objection to anticipatory bail during earlier proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, particularly paragraphs 61 and 62, which delineate the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023). The Court noted that while serious offences like murder, rape, or dacoity cannot be quashed even upon settlement, cases with a predominantly civil or personal flavour - particularly those arising from matrimonial disputes - are distinct.
"In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim."
The Court observed that the present case fell squarely within this category. The complainant had not only sought and obtained a divorce by mutual consent but had also executed a sworn affidavit affirming full and final settlement, withdrawal of all allegations, and no objection to quashing. The State and the complainant’s counsel both conceded the settlement. The Court emphasized that the offences alleged, though serious on paper, were rooted in domestic discord and lacked any element of public harm or societal impact.
The Court further held that with the complainant no longer willing to testify or support the prosecution, the likelihood of conviction was remote and bleak. To continue the proceedings would serve no legitimate purpose and would constitute an abuse of the judicial process. The Court rejected any notion that the gravity of the alleged offences alone warranted continuation, noting that the Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between offences affecting public order and those confined to private relationships.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed FIR No. 124/2023, Final Report No. 83/2024, the order of cognizance dated 09.08.2024, and all criminal proceedings in Case No. 14209/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The quashing is subject to the fulfillment of the terms of the compromise settlement recorded in the affidavit dated 03.03.2026, including mutual consent divorce, full financial settlement, and withdrawal of all allegations.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement in Matrimonial Cases Can Terminate Criminal Proceedings
- Practitioners may now confidently move for quashing under Section 528 BNSS where mutual consent divorce has been granted and the complainant has executed a sworn affidavit withdrawing all allegations
- The presence of a divorce decree is a strong indicator of irrevocable settlement, even if the original FIR alleges serious offences
- Courts will prioritize the finality of private settlements over mechanical continuation of proceedings in personal disputes
Prosecution Cannot Proceed Without Victim’s Cooperation
- In cases where the complainant is the sole source of evidence (as in most matrimonial offences), absence of prosecutorial support renders conviction impossible
- Courts will not permit criminal machinery to be used as leverage in post-divorce negotiations
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate a compelling public interest to override a voluntary settlement
Abuse of Process Doctrine Applies Broadly to Personal Disputes
- The doctrine of abuse of process is not confined to commercial or financial disputes but extends to matrimonial matters
- Quashing is not a pardon but a recognition that justice is served by ending futile proceedings
- Lawyers must ensure settlement documents are comprehensive, sworn, and filed with the petition to avoid dismissal on procedural grounds
