After 8 Years Apart, Divorce And ₹4 Lakh Settlement, Delhi HC Quashes Dowry-Cruelty FIR Against Ex-Husband And Family With Wife’s Consent

The petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 164/2019, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR alleged dowry demands, cruelty and misappropriation of the complainant’s stridhan and dowry articles.

Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 had married in 2017, had no children, and had lived separately since 2 September 2018.

They later settled their disputes; the marriage was dissolved by mutual-consent divorce and the agreed settlement amount of ₹4,00,000 was paid.

Respondent no. 2 appeared before the Court, confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, and stated that she had no objection to quashing the FIR.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of court.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, that power may extend to non-compoundable offences where the dispute is predominantly private or matrimonial, the settlement is genuine, and quashing is justified by the ends of justice; it is not ordinarily available for heinous offences or offences with serious societal impact.

Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, further recognises that criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes may be quashed following an amicable, voluntary settlement, notwithstanding that the offences are non-compoundable.

The Court treated the dispute as matrimonial and essentially private, rather than one involving heinous or seriously society-affecting offences.

It relied on the parties’ comprehensive settlement, the mutual-consent divorce, payment of the agreed amount, their long separation, and respondent no. 2’s in-court confirmation that the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to proceed.

As the complainant was the principal prosecution witness, the Court considered the likelihood of conviction remote and bleak; continuing the proceedings would therefore not advance the ends of justice.

Allowing the petition, it quashed FIR No. 164/2019 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, together with all proceedings arising from it, as against all petitioners.

The petition and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.