Bombay High Court Quashes 377 IPC And Dowry Harassment FIR After Divorce | Misuse Of Matrimonial Laws A Menace And Courts Must Encourage Settlement | Continued Prosecution Would Breach Article 21 Liberty
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice M.M. Nerlikar quashed criminal proceedings stemming from allegations under Sections 498-A, 377 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The proceedings originated from a First Information Report (FIR) registered at Beltarodi Police Station, Nagpur. The Court exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
After hearing the matter on July 08, 2025, and noting the mutual settlement between the informant and the applicants, which included a consent decree for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, the Bench directed the quashing of the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. The Court recorded the informant’s unequivocal consent and personal presence, finding the compromise to be voluntary and genuine.
The directive to quash the FIR was granted with the observation that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and might cause injustice to the parties who have already resolved their differences and intend to move forward in life separately. The Court stated that to "do complete justice," the prayer for quashing deserved to be entertained.
The matter originated from a complaint lodged on 18.12.2023 at Beltarodi Police Station, Nagpur, which was subsequently registered as FIR No.737/2023. The FIR named multiple applicants, including the husband of the informant and his relatives. The alleged offences included those under Section 498-A (cruelty), Section 377 (unnatural offences), and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
According to the FIR, the informant was married to applicant Akshay on 15.05.2023 in Nagpur. She alleged that her father had given valuable gifts to the husband at the time of marriage, including gold ornaments, a motorcycle, and a motor car. She further stated that marriage-related expenses amounted to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The informant claimed that upon entering her matrimonial home, her sister-in-law took possession of certain gold ornaments, asserting ownership over them. Additionally, the complainant alleged that her in-laws criticized her father for not providing specific items during the marriage, leading to disputes.
It was also alleged that the applicant Akshay consumed alcohol habitually and subjected the informant to unnatural sexual acts, causing injuries to her private parts. Allegations were also levelled against the sisters of the husband for subjecting her to harassment.
One of the co-applicants, Rajkumari Pali, the maternal aunt of the husband, was accused of demanding five acres of land and a 2 BHK flat from the complainant. The informant further alleged that her mobile phone was subjected to hacking attempts by sister-in-law Shewta through a third party.
Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court and registered as R.C.C. No.2514/2024, pending before the 11th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.
Three criminal applications were filed seeking the quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings on the basis of a mutual settlement. The applicants contended that the parties had resolved their matrimonial dispute and that a memorandum of understanding had been entered into. A consent decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Special Marriage Act was also passed by the Family Court, Nagpur, on 01.07.2025.
In support of the application, the informant (wife) filed a reply affirming the settlement and the decree of divorce. She explicitly stated her intent to move on and expressed no objection to the quashing of the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. Her personal presence in court was recorded and verified by her advocate.
The Court recorded, "Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, matters are taken up for final disposal."
The Bench acknowledged the informant’s personal appearance and stated, "She has stated before the Court that she has no objection if this Court quashes the first information report and criminal proceedings."
Referring to the legal basis for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed, "This Court is having ample powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the first information report and charge sheet, though Sections 498-A and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable."
Citing the precedent in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Bench quoted: "The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code."
The Court continued, quoting directly: "Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing... particularly the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute."
On the impact of such proceedings, the Court noted: "Continuation of the criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim."
The Bench outlined additional jurisprudential principles from multiple precedents, observing: "The inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court... is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice."
Discussing societal implications, the Court observed: "Marital discord has now a days become menace in the society due to various factors. The parties who are fighting due to these marital discord are having several remedies in law. The small issue between the two are spoiling the entire life..."
Addressing the misuse of matrimonial statutes, the Court noted: "Legislation intended to improve marital relationships... are frequently misused by parties, resulting in multiplicity of litigation, that not only burdens the Court, but also cause mental as well as physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss and irreversible harm to children and other family members."
The Bench concluded the observations with the following: "To do complete justice which would save the future life of husband and wife and they would be free to lead their respective life happily and with dignity, which is another facet of Article 21."
The Division Bench issued the following final directions: "Criminal Applications are allowed."
The Court ordered, "The First Information Report No.737/2023 registered with Beltarodi Police Station, Nagpur dated 18.12.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 along with the Criminal Proceeding bearing R.C.C. No.2514/2024, pending on the file of the 11th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside."
The Court concluded its order with: "Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.P. Sonwane, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S.M. Ukey, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1; Mr. J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2
Case Title: ARP vs State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Application 900 of 2025
Bench: Justice Nitin W. Sambre, Justice M.M. Nerlikar
