Criminal Proceedings stand quashed where wife receives alimony under mutual divorce but fails to withdraw complaint.

The complainant (O.P. No. 2) filed Complaint Case No. 573 of 2010 against her husband (the petitioner) and his family members alleging cruelty and dowry demands

On 09.07.2010, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, took cognizance under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

On 05.02.2024, the Family Court at Patna granted a divorce by mutual consent, wherein the husband paid a settlement of Rs. 86 lakhs to the wife

Despite receiving the amount and undertaking to assist in quashing the criminal case, the wife failed to appear before the High Court

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) regarding the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

Supreme Court precedents of Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal (2005) and Dhananjay Rathi vs. Ruchika Rathi (2024), which establish that once a party receives the benefits of a compromise (such as a divorce and alimony), they cannot resile from the obligation to withdraw related criminal proceedings

Principle from Anurag Vijaykumar Goel vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) regarding the quashing of proceedings when a marriage has irretrievably broken down and allegations are vague

The Court observed that the marriage between the parties was legally dissolved by mutual consent and a substantial financial settlement of Rs. 86 lakhs was paid and received through banking channels

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had fulfilled his part of the compromise, whereas the complainant-wife, after securing the relief she sought, was intentionally absenting herself from the proceedings despite her previous undertaking

Following the rationale in Ruchi Agarwal, the Court found that allowing the criminal trial to continue after a full and final settlement would constitute a gross abuse of the judicial process and serve only to harass the petitioner

The Court further noted that proceedings against the elderly parents had already abated due to their death

The relief was extended not only to the petitioner-husband but also to the sister-in-law and brother-in-law (Accused Nos. 4 and 5)

The complainant was granted liberty to file a review petition if she possessed relevant information