The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a wife against her former husband’s family, holding that their continuation after a foreign divorce decree and a subsequent amicable settlement would be an instance of harassment and an abuse of the process of law. The Court exercised its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.
Case Background
The case originated from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife who were married on May 1, 2001, and subsequently moved to the United States of America. After their relationship soured, they obtained a mutual divorce decree from the Superior Court of California on March 15, 2007.
Upon returning to India, the wife initiated a series of legal proceedings. On November 5, 2008, she filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. This was followed by a police complaint on November 20, 2008, which culminated in Complaint Case No. 991 of 2010. Meanwhile, her motion to set aside the California divorce decree was dismissed on January 19, 2010.
Subsequently, on November 8, 2010, she filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DVC No. 30 of 2010), alleging cruelty by her husband and his family (the appellants). On March 18, 2011, she filed FIR No. 28 of 2011 against the appellants under Sections 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The husband and his family (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law) challenged these proceedings before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court, in a common order dated March 30, 2012, refused to quash the proceedings, observing that the couple had lived together before, during, and after the divorce. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court. The parents-in-law passed away during the pendency of the appeal.
During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the parties were referred to a Lok Adalat to settle a related property dispute (O.S. No. 9 of 2014). On December 28, 2022, they reached an amicable compromise, which was recorded in a Lok Adalat award. A key term of the settlement was that the wife agreed “to withdraw her contests in all pending cases before various Courts filed by her” and to “cooperate with the defendant to file compromise memos before the Courts concerned.”
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sri S. Wasim A. Qadri, argued that since the marriage had been dissolved in 2007 and a comprehensive settlement was reached through the Lok Adalat, the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 to quash the criminal complaints.
Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. K.P. Sundar Rao, submitted that the High Court was right in its decision but stated that appropriate orders may be passed by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench noted that the criminal complaints were filed by the wife subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage. The Court emphasized that a full and final settlement of all claims had been effectuated between the parties before the Lok Adalat.
The judgment cited previous decisions, including Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, which cautioned against the “recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement.” The Court observed that allowing prosecution on allegations “bereft of specific particulars” would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The bench further relied on its judgments in Mala Kar vs. State Of Uttarakhand and Arun Jain vs. State of NCT of Delhi, where it was held that where a matrimonial relationship has ended by divorce, “criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment.”
The Court found that the present case was a fit one to invoke its powers under Article 142. The judgment stated, “Once the parties have genuinely settled all their differences amicably, the continuation of criminal proceedings between the parties serves no legitimate purpose. It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer alive.”
In its concluding remarks, the Court held that the prosecution of the criminal case was no longer the wife’s intention as per the settlement, and its continuation would be futile. The Court observed, “Moreover, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would only be an instance of harassment to the appellants having regard to the peculiar facts of the case. Further, no fruitful purpose would be served in the continuation of the court proceedings and taking it to its logical end.”
Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed FIR No. 28 of 2011 and all other criminal proceedings commenced pursuant thereto.
