Matrimonial criminal proceedings may be quashed after settlement and mutual-consent divorce.

The petitioner, the husband of opposite party no. 2, sought to quash the Magistrate’s order dated 8 September 2022 taking cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 325, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Beur P.S. Case No. 135 of 2020.

The petitioner alleged that the parties had settled their matrimonial dispute, obtained a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and that the wife had received final alimony and had no remaining grievance.

Despite attempts at service, opposite party no. 2 was not served, and the Court proceeded to hear the matter.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the cognizance order and ensuing criminal proceedings in light of the parties’ settlement and divorce by mutual consent.

2. Whether continuation of the prosecution, in these circumstances, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Court relied on the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.

Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., [2025 INSC 962], the Court stated that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes that have been settled, courts should seek to bring the litigation to a peaceful end and may exercise Section 482 powers to do so.

The Court also considered the decree dissolving the marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court found that the parties had amicably resolved their differences, obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and that the wife had filed a compromise petition stating that she had received final alimony and had no remaining grievance.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Mange Ram, it concluded that, in the circumstances of this matrimonial dispute, continuing the prosecution would serve no legitimate purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.