Reconciled Couple Living Separately From In-Laws: Delhi HC Quashes Matrimonial FIR, Including Section 354 Allegation Against Brother-In-Law

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 married in April 2021.

Following matrimonial differences, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging dowry demands, cruelty, retention of stridhan, and eviction; she also alleged inappropriate touching by petitioner No. 2, the brother of petitioner No. 1.

An FIR was registered under Sections 498A, 406, 354 and 34 IPC, and a chargesheet was filed, though charges had not been framed.

The parties later reconciled, executed a settlement agreement through mediation, and were living together with their child.

Respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court and affirmed that she voluntarily sought no further proceedings against any petitioner.

The petition sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, including for non-compoundable offences, where doing so would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, proceedings arising from predominantly private or matrimonial disputes may be quashed after settlement where the circumstances show that conviction is unlikely and continuation would defeat justice.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, requires the Court to consider the nature of the offence, the settlement, and whether the possibility of conviction is remote.

Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, recognises that non-compoundability does not bar quashing in a genuine, voluntary settlement of matrimonial disputes.

The Court found that the dispute arose from the parties’ matrimonial relationship and had been resolved through settlement; petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had reconciled and were living together, and charges had not yet been framed.

It accepted respondent No. 2’s affirmation that her decision was voluntary and free from pressure.

Although the Section 354 allegation against petitioner No. 2 was serious, the Court considered it part of the same matrimonial complaint and not independent of the underlying dispute.

Respondent No. 2 did not wish to proceed against him, and the parties lived separately from the in-laws in independent accommodation.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that conviction was unlikely and continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.