The Supreme Court of India, exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has quashed criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute, including charges under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that once a couple has divorced by mutual consent and settled their disputes, continuing the prosecution against the husband and his family members would be an abuse of the process of law.
A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had refused to quash the First Information Report (FIR).
Background of the Case
The case originated from a matrimonial relationship between Navneesh Aggarwal (appellant No. 1) and respondent No. 2, who were married on March 6, 2018. Due to differences, respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home approximately ten months later.
Subsequently, on May 15, 2019, respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 67 at Police Station Radaur, District Yamunanagar, Haryana, against her husband and his parents (appellant Nos. 2 and 3). The FIR alleged offences under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC. A chargesheet was filed in the matter on November 7, 2019.
However, the parties later resolved their disputes and were granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the concerned Family Court on January 19, 2024. Following the divorce, all pending proceedings filed by respondent No. 2 were withdrawn. The appellants then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the FIR. Respondent No. 2 filed a reply stating she had no objection to the quashing. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, noting that certain allegations regarding the victimisation of the wife’s child from a previous marriage had been substantiated. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Abhinav Ramkrishna, argued that since the parties have divorced by mutual consent and a compromise has been effectuated, no purpose would be served by continuing the criminal prosecution. He submitted that the divorce decree has attained finality and respondent No. 2 had no objection to the quashing.
Conversely, Sri Shekhar Raj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Haryana, contended that the complaint was justified. He submitted that there were specific allegations regarding the victimisation of the child by appellant No. 1, and therefore, it was not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court framed the central question for consideration as “whether, the allegations contained in FIR No.67 of 2019 warrant invocation of this Court’s powers in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India owing to the settlement arrived at between the parties.”
The bench observed that it has become a “recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family” in matrimonial disputes. Citing its decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Court noted that allowing prosecution to proceed on allegations bereft of specific particulars, especially against relatives not connected with the matrimonial home, “would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
The judgment emphasized that criminal law should not be used as an “instrument of harassment.” The Court further relied on its judgments in Mala Kar vs. State Of Uttarakhand and Arun Jain vs. State of NCT of Delhi, where it had previously quashed criminal proceedings post-divorce, holding that “to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.”
The bench articulated its reasoning, stating, “Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on in their lives individually, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live.”
The Court highlighted the key facts that guided its decision:
- A decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed and has attained finality.
- A compromise decree has been effectuated, resolving all differences.
- All other pending cases between the parties have been withdrawn.
- Respondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Referring to the precedent in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court reiterated that in matrimonial disputes, where the parties have settled amicably, the High Court can quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if their continuation would be an “exercise in futility” and “justice shall be casualty.”
Final Decision
In light of the settlement and the specific facts of the case, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.
The Court ordered, “we quash the chargesheet dated 07.11.2019 as well as the FIR No.67 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019 registered at P.S Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana against appellant Nos. 1 to 3 under sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the IPC and all other criminal proceedings commenced pursuant thereto.”
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the bench concluded that the prosecution of the criminal case was no longer the intention of respondent No. 2 and its continuation “would only be an instance of harassment to the appellants” and that “no fruitful purpose would be served.”
