Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 991
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1802-1803/2013
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5758-5759 of 2022)
MADDURI GANGARAJU @ BABU RAO … APPELLANT
VERSUS
MADDURI SUNANDA & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Being aggrieved by the common order dated 30.03.2012
passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad whereby the High Court while disposing of Criminal
Petition Nos.5270 & 7262 of 2011 refused to quash the legal
proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, Smt. Madduri Sunanda,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.08.18
14:26:54 IST
Reason:
against her husband, Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao, and original
Page 1 of 20
appellants Nos.1 to 3. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 who were father-in-
law and mother-in-law of respondent No.1 respectively died during
the pendency of these appeals and therefore the appeals have stood
abated vis-à-vis them. Appellant No.3 is the brother-in-law of
respondent No.1.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the marriage
between Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as
“husband”, for the sake of convenience) and respondent No.1 was
solemnized on 01.05.2001. Both of them moved to the United
States of America on 02.10.2002. After about three years, the
relationship between the husband and the wife turned sour and
consequently, both parties mutually decided to seek divorce and
the same was granted by the Superior Court of California, County
of Alameda on 15.03.2007.
3. Upon returning to India, on 05.11.2008, respondent No.1 filed
a matrimonial suit being O.P. No.1298 of 2008 seeking relief of
restitution of conjugal rights. She subsequently filed a police
complaint on 20.11.2008 against her husband that finally
Page 2 of 20
culminated into Complaint Case No.991 of 2010 before the court of
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
Meanwhile, respondent No.1 moved a motion before the Superior
Court of California to set aside the judgment of divorce, which was
dismissed on 19.01.2010. On 08.11.2010, respondent No.1 filed a
case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 being DVC No. 30 of 2010 before the court of III
Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam alleging cruelty by the
husband and the appellants herein. Thereafter, she also filed FIR
No.28 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011 against the appellants at
Gollaparlu Police Station, East Godavari District under Sections
494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).
4. Aggrieved by the multiple legal proceedings initiated by
respondent No.1, the husband and the appellants filed Criminal
Petition No.5270/2011 on 28.06.2011 before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh challenging Complaint Case No.991/2010.
Furthermore, they filed Criminal Petition No.7262/2011
challenging DVC No.30/2010. The husband also filed Criminal
Page 3 of 20
Petition No.2851/2011 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) seeking to quash FIR No.28 of
2011.
5. The High Court clubbed the aforementioned Criminal Petition
Nos.2851/2011, 5270/2011 and 7262/2011 and disposed them of
by the impugned common order dated 30.03.2012. The High Court
dismissed all the three criminal petitions observing that respondent
No.1 and her husband had lived together before, during and after
the divorce proceedings and respondent No.1 had given birth to a
child during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Hence, the
High Court refused to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC
to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned common order of the High Court,
the appellants have preferred the present appeals. This Court, vide
order dated 17.08.2012, issued notice to the respondents and
granted stay of further proceedings initiated by respondent No.1
against the appellants. Further, considering that the matter could
be settled through mediation, this Court vide order dated
Page 4 of 20
04.07.2013, directed the parties to appear before the Mediation
Centre at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
Mediation was unsuccessful. Thereafter, this Court granted leave
vide order dated 18.10.2013.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, it
appears that respondent No.1 preferred OS No.9 of 2014 on the file
of XII Additional District Court, Pithapuram, seeking to set aside a
gift settlement deed that was entered into between her husband
and respondent No.1 on 06.10.2006 wherein a certain property was
transferred from respondent No.1 to her husband. On agreement of
the parties, they were referred to the Lok Adalat vide Lok Adalat
Case No.436/2022 and they resultantly agreed for an amicable
compromise to settle all the disputes. Consequently, the Lok Adalat
deemed it fit to pass an award under Section 21 of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 on 28.12.2022. The award is extracted
hereinbelow:
Page 5 of 20
“AWARD U/S.21 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES
AUTHORITY ACT, 1987
Plaintiffs and defendant and counsel for plaintiffs and
defendant are present before Lok Adalat and they agreed
for the following terms:
i) The plaintiffs admitted that the gift settlement deed
st
dated 06.10.2006 executed by the 1 plaintiff in the name
of the defendant is validly executed and admits that the
defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the
plaint schedule property by virtue of the gift settlement
deed dated 06.10.2006.
ii) It is settled between the parties that the plaint
schedule property has to be disposed of as early as
possible by the defendant herein and out of the sale
proceeds, 50% of the proceeds of such sale proceeds must
st
be given to the 1 plaintiff.
iii) In view of the compromise between the parties, the
defendant herein paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-
st
(Rupees twenty lakhs only) to the 1 plaintiff which is
agreed to be adjusted in the 50% of sale consideration to
st
be given by the defendant to the 1 plaintiff.
st
iv) In view of the compromise arrived in between the 1
st
plaintiff and the defendant, 1 plaintiff agreed to withdraw
her contests in all pending cases before various Courts
filed by her. In view of the compromise arrived in between
st
the parties, the 1 plaintiff herein agreed to withdraw all
cases including pending appeals before the Hon'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh and Supreme Court and
cooperate with the defendant to file compromise memos
before the Courts concerned and intimate about their
compromise before the Courts concerned.
Page 6 of 20
st
v) The 1 plaintiff herein thought that there will not be
st
any chance for cohabitation in between the 1 plaintiff and
st
the defendant, the 1 plaintiff will take separate steps by
way of filing petitions before the competent Court of law
st
for dissolution of marriage between the 1 plaintiff and the
defendant.
vi) In view of the compromise arrived in between the
parties, both parties agreed not to make any future claims
against each other relating to the properties in any manner
st
whatsoever. The 1 plaintiff also agreed not to make any
claim against the defendant in any manner either for
herself or for the daughter Hasini.
Accordingly, award is passed in terms of compromise.
st
1 Plaintiff is entitled for refund of court fee.
Both parties have been explained the terms of award in
Telugu language and that they understood the terms of
compromise and affixed their signatures in evidence of
their consent for the terms of award.”
8. This Court, for the purpose of withdrawal of the cases from
the concerned Trial Courts, ordered vide order dated 30.01.2025
that the interim order dated 17.08.2012 would not be an
impediment.
9. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent-State.
In the circumstances, we have heard learned senior counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Page 7 of 20
10. Sri S. Wasim A. Qadri, learned senior counsel for the
appellant submitted that there has been a settlement between the
parties through Lok Adalat Case No.436/2022. A copy of the
Settlement is submitted across the bar. He submitted that the
marriage between respondent No.1 and her husband was dissolved
by a decree of divorce vide order dated 15.03.2007 which has
attained finality. The complaint under the provisions of Domestic
Violence Act was made thereafter by respondent No.1 herein. In the
circumstances, by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, this Court may quash the said complaint and
all proceedings arising out of the said complaint which in any case
were stayed by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2012.
11. Mr. K.P. Sundar Rao, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1, submitted that the High Court was right in
dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC and there is
no merit in these appeals. Alternatively, he submitted that
appropriate orders may be passed in this appeal.
Page 8 of 20
12. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of
Telangana , (2025) 3 SCC 735 , has clearly held that family
members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into
criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court
observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every
member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual
involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the
spouses. It was further held that where the allegations are bereft of
specific particulars, and particularly where the relatives sought to
be prosecuted are residing separately or have had no connection
with the matrimonial home, allowing the prosecution to proceed
would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court noted
that criminal law is not to be deployed as an instrument of
harassment and that judicial scrutiny must be exercised to guard
against such misuse.
13. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that
where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of
divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective lives,
Page 9 of 20
criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought
not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment. In the cases
of Mala Kar vs. State Of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal
No.1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”) and Arun Jain
vs. State of NCT of Delhi , Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No.9178 of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”), this Court,
while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial
discord against the husband. The Court took note of the fact that
the couple therein had divorced and held that in such a situation,
to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of
the process of law. The reasoning adopted therein applies with
equal force to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 12 of Mala
Kar and the relevant paragraph in Arun Jain are extracted
respectively as under:
“12. Following the aforesaid judgment, in the instant case,
we have already noted that there has been a decree of
divorce passed between the parties dated 18.10.2014. It is
thereafter that on 06.04.2015, the FIR was registered in
respect of the criminal complaint filed on 09.08.2014. More
significantly, both the appellant No.2 and respondent No.2
Page 10 of 20
have since remarried and are leading their independent
lives. Therefore, both parties have accepted the decree of
divorce passed by the Family Court on 18.10.2014.
Moreover, the appellant No.2-former husband of the
respondent No.2 has agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as ex-gratia to the
respondent No.2 herein in full and final settlement of all
her claims, with a prayer to this Court to do complete
justice in this matter and for invoking its powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
xxx
Following the aforesaid judgments, in the instant case, it
is noted that the appellants and respondent No.2 were
married on 01.11.1996 and a daughter was born to them
on 19.04.2001. It is also stated by learned counsel for the
appellants that appellant No.1 left the matrimonial home
on 23.04.2007 and thereafter respondent No.2 sought
divorce which was granted by the Competent Court on
04.04.2013. It was only thereafter on 31.10.2013 that
respondent No.2 filed the complaint against the appellants
herein and the FIR was registered on 13.02.2014 and the
chargesheet was filed on 22.09.2015. It is also to be noted
that the proceedings initiated under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the year 2008
by respondent No.2 herein culminated in the dismissal of
the said proceeding on merits by order dated 28.07.2017
which has attained finality. Having regard to the aforesaid
peculiar and crucial aspects of the present case and by
following the order dated 19.03.2024, the appeal is liable
to be allowed as we find that this is a fit case where we can
exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India.”
Page 11 of 20
14. This Court, in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635, while considering quashing of
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, in the context of the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, took into consideration the fact
that there had been a settlement arrived at between the parties in
the said case and therefore, exercising jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India, the Court quashed the complaint,
the FIR, and subsequent criminal proceedings against the accused
therein. The relevant portion of the said judgment is at paragraph
15 which is extracted as under:
“15. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of
Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Another .
has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
“48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to
make such order as is necessary for doing
complete justice “between the parties in any cause
or matter pending before it”. The very nature of the
power must lead the Court to set limits for itself
within which to exercise those powers and
ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision
governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the
equities between the conflicting claims of the
Page 12 of 20
litigating parties by “ironing out the creases” in a
cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not
a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-
settling. It is well recognised and established that
this Court has always been a law-maker and its
role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a
“problem solver in the nebulous areas” (see K.
Veeraswami v. Union of India) but the substantive
statutory provisions dealing with the subject
matter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored
by this Court, while making an order under Article
142. Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot,
in any way, be controlled by any statutory
provisions but at the same time these powers are
not meant to be exercised when their exercise may
come directly in conflict with what has been
expressly provided for in a statute dealing
expressly with the subject.”
15. This Court took note of the peculiar facts arising in the
aforesaid case and the fact that a settlement had been arrived at
between the parties and consequently, found it appropriate to
invoke powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India and quashed the criminal proceedings to do complete
justice between the parties. Further, this Court set-aside the order
of the High Court and allowed the appeal filed therein.
Page 13 of 20
16. Following the aforesaid judicial dicta, in the instant case, we
have noted the following facts in the instant case:
(i) That the parties have parted ways which has attained finality
inasmuch as there is a decree of divorce granted by the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on
15.03.2007;
(ii) That Complaint Case No.991 of 2010 before the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and FIR
No.28 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011 against the appellants at
Gollaparlu Police Station, East Godavari District under
Sections 494 and 498A of the IPC have been filed by
respondent No.1 subsequent to the dissolution of the
marriage between her and her husband;
(iii) That the suit filed by respondent No.1 in in OS No.9 of 2014
on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram
with regard to gift settlement deed has ended in a Lok Adalat
Page 14 of 20
Case No.436/2022. The terms of award under Section 21 of
the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 are extracted above;
(iv) That both the parties had agreed for an amicable compromise
to settle all disputes before Lok Adalat;
(v) That order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the Lok Adalat
vide
in Lok Adalat Case No.436/2022, a full and final settlement
of all claims was effectuated between the parties by way of
which all the differences between them have come to be
resolved;
(vi) That respondent No.1 has agreed to withdraw all the pending
cases including pending appeals before various Courts;
(vii) That both the parties have agreed not to make any future
claims against each other with respect to the properties.
17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the power under
Article 142 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete
justice in matters of this nature. Once the parties have genuinely
settled all their differences amicably, the continuation of criminal
Page 15 of 20
proceedings between the parties serves no legitimate purpose. It
only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system
with disputes that are no longer alive. The law must be applied in
a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances
with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse. In
appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential
to uphold fairness and bring quietus to personal disputes that have
run their course.
18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of M.P. vs. Laxmi
Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed in paragraph 15.5 thereof
that while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences,
which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on
society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, it is necessary to consider the
antecedents of the accused, the conduct of the accused, namely,
whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding,
Page 16 of 20
how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a
compromise, etc.
19. Applying the aforesaid to the present case, we find that the
appellant herein would not come within the scope of the aforesaid
observations by which the plea of the appellant for quashing of the
FIR and consequent proceedings against him could be declined.
20. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10
SCC 303 wherein this Court observed that where the High Court
quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the
dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled,
although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its
opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in
futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between
the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends
of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific
reference was made to offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the
Page 17 of 20
wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and the victim have
settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact
that such offences have not been made compoundable. This Court
observed that the High Court may, within the framework of its
inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and
by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be the
casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
21. In Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 78, one of us
(Viswanathan, J.) observed in paragraph 32 that proceeding with
the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute,
would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement
be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave
abuse of process particularly when the dispute is settled and
resolved.
Page 18 of 20
22. Taking note of the aforementioned factual matrix, the
submissions of learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for respondent No.1, and by applying the ratio of the
aforesaid judgments to this case , we allow the appeals and quash
the complaint and all proceedings arising out of the said complaint
made by respondent No.1. In the circumstances, while invoking our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we quash the FIR
No.28 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011 registered at Gollaparlu Police
Station, East Godavari District under Sections 494 and 498A of the
IPC and all other criminal proceedings commenced pursuant
thereto. Consequently, the order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad is set
aside. We hold so for the reason that the prosecution of the criminal
case by respondent No.1 herein is not as per her intention any
longer. Moreover, the continuation of the criminal proceeding
would only be an instance of harassment to the appellants having
regard to the peculiar facts of the case. Further, no fruitful purpose
would be served in the continuation of the court proceedings and
Page 19 of 20
taking it to its logical end. In this context, we have relied upon the
judicial dicta of this Court discussed above.
T he appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms exercising our
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
…….……………………………..J.
(B. V. NAGARATHNA)
.…………………………………..J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 30, 2025.
Page 20 of 20