The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition filed by a husband under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of a 2005 FIR for dowry harassment.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the case (CRL.M.C. 5386/2018), ruled that the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of a settlement agreement, as the settlement was never executed or acted upon. The Court found that the failure of the settlement was “purely on account of the Petitioner [husband] who admittedly failed to appear in the Family Court resulting in the dismissal of Divorce Petition.”
Background of the Case
The Petitioner-husband and Respondent No. 2-wife were married on 25.01.1991, and have two children. The parties have been living separately since 2005.
On 26.10.2005, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, which led to the registration of FIR No. 0182/2005 under Sections 498A/406 IPC at PS: Tuglak Road, New Delhi. A chargesheet was subsequently filed, and the matter (Criminal Case No. 43291/2016) is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.
The Settlement and Subsequent Failure
The parties, along with their children, amicably settled their disputes on 04.10.2018. The Petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 37,00,000/- in lieu of all past, present, and future claims.
Pursuant to this, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The first motion was recorded on 05.10.2018. The Petitioner deposited six FDRs amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- before the Family Court. As per the settlement terms, this amount was to be released only after the quashing of the present FIR. An additional Rs. 7,00,000/- was payable at the time of the second motion.
The husband filed the present petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR based on this settlement.
Arguments of the Petitioner (Husband)
The Petitioner submitted that after the first motion, he could not appear for the second motion hearings after 08.09.2019, citing “urgent work” as he was working in Dubai, followed by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Due to his non-appearance, the Family Court dismissed the mutual consent divorce petition for non-prosecution on 01.09.2021. His subsequent application for restoration was dismissed by the Family Court on 21.10.2022.
The Petitioner asserted that he had “performed his part of the settlement” by depositing the Rs. 30,00,000/- and claimed he “has always been ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.” He contended that the action of Respondent No. 2, who later refused to consent to the quashing, “is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court.”
Arguments of Respondent No. 2 (Wife)
Respondent No. 2 filed a detailed reply, submitting that the settlement “could not succeed” on account of the Petitioner’s “non-fulfilment of obligations.”
She stated that she entered the settlement under “compelling circumstances” as her daughter had attained a marriageable age. She argued that “despite having so much anger against the Petitioner for committing cruelties upon her and disowning both children,” she consented to the settlement.
However, she was “denied the release of settlement amount as the date of marriage was coming near.” She submitted that she had to arrange funds for her daughter’s marriage from her own means and by borrowing, alleging the Petitioner “did not perform any duty as a father.”
The Respondent confirmed that she had recorded her “denial in consenting for quashing of present FIR” before the High Court on 22.11.2022. She also noted that the Petitioner’s appeal in Jodhpur against the dismissal of the restoration application was also dismissed.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After hearing the submissions and perusing the record, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the quashing petition was based entirely on the 2018 settlement.
The Court noted from the Petitioner’s own submissions that “neither balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was ever deposited nor has the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has ever been released to Respondent No.2.”
The judgment highlighted that the Petitioner was “not forthcoming” when Respondent No. 2 sought money for the daughter’s marriage.
The Court held that the settlement was never implemented. Justice Krishna stated, “Averments made in the Petition itself reflect that though a settlement was entered between the parties, but there was never any implementation or execution of the same.”
The Court placed the onus for the failure of the settlement squarely on the Petitioner, observing, “it is the Petitioner, who had failed to appear before the Family Court, Jodhpur, Rajasthan to make a statement for the second motion, which has resulted in non-release of any money to Respondent No.2, as per the agreed terms of the Settlement.”
The Court concluded that the settlement was never acted upon, stating, “In view of aforesaid, there is nothing to show that this settlement has been ever acted upon by the Petitioner; merely depositing cheques of certain amounts, which have not been released to Respondent No.2 till date as no Divorce by Mutual Consent fructified purely on account of the Petitioner…”
Holding that “it cannot be held that the parties having acted upon the Settlement,” the High Court found “no ground for quashing of the present FIR No.0182/2005 on the basis of settlement.”
The petition was dismissed as “being without merits.”
