Wife Receives Full ₹3.5 Lakh Settlement As Delhi HC Quashes Dowry And Cruelty FIR Against Husband And Co-Accused

Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 married on 4 February 2016 and had been living separately since 2019; they had no child.

On Respondent No. 2’s complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; the allegations included misrepresentation concerning employment and property, cruelty, dowry demands and threats, and a chargesheet had been filed.

The parties later entered into a settlement before the Family Court, agreeing to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and for Petitioner No. 1 to pay Respondent No. 2 ₹3,50,000 in full and final settlement of her claims.

Respondent No. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and had no objection to quashing the FIR. The full settlement amount was paid, including the balance ₹1,00,000 handed over in court.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, including in cases involving non-compoundable offences, where doing so would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; this power is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences and must be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, permits quashing where a dispute is predominantly private or matrimonial, the parties have settled it, and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose or defeat justice, while excluding serious offences with substantial societal impact.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, directs courts to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the settlement, the likelihood of conviction and whether continuation would cause injustice.

Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, recognises that non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes may be quashed where the settlement is amicable and voluntary.

The Court treated the prosecution as arising from a matrimonial relationship and found that the parties had resolved their disputes through a settlement, including full payment of the agreed ₹3,50,000.

Respondent No. 2 affirmed that she had entered the settlement freely, without pressure or coercion, and consented to quashing the FIR.

Applying the cited principles on quashing settled matrimonial disputes, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose and that there was no impediment to allowing the petition.

It allowed the petition under Section 528 BNSS and quashed FIR No. 0439/2020, registered at Police Station Gokul Puri under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, together with all consequential proceedings, qua all petitioners.