Delhi High Court: Matrimonial FIR Can’t Be Quashed If Settlement Between Estranged Spouses Not Executed
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that a matrimonial FIR cannot be quashed when the settlement agreement between estranged spouses remains unexecuted. The Court declined to quash an FIR registered in 2005 against a Dubai-based man accused of dowry harassment by his wife, noting that the compromise they reached had not been fulfilled. It recorded that although the parties had agreed on a monetary settlement and initiated divorce proceedings by mutual consent, the petitioner failed to appear before the Family Court for the second motion, leading to the dismissal of the divorce petition. The Court concluded that since the settlement was never acted upon, there was no ground to terminate the criminal proceedings.
The petitioner, a Dubai-based Indian national, approached the High Court seeking quashing of a First Information Report registered at the instance of his wife under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles. The FIR was lodged in 2005, stating that the complainant was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her husband and his family members soon after the marriage, primarily on account of dowry demands.
During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement agreement before the Family Court in Jodhpur. Under this agreement, they decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and the petitioner undertook to pay a lump sum amount to the complainant towards full and final settlement of all claims, including those arising from the criminal proceedings. A petition for divorce by mutual consent was accordingly filed before the Family Court.
The complainant appeared and gave her consent for the dissolution of marriage at the stage of the first motion. However, the petitioner failed to appear for the second motion, resulting in dismissal of the divorce petition for non-prosecution. The complainant contended that no payment was made to her as promised under the settlement and that the agreed terms had not been honoured.
The petitioner argued that since a settlement had been executed and a mutual consent petition filed, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The State and the complainant opposed the plea, submitting that the settlement had not been implemented in any manner and therefore could not form the basis for quashing. The matter was heard in light of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
“By way of present Petition, Petitioner has sought quashing of present FIR No.0182/2005 in terms of Settlement arrived at between the parties on 04.10.2018.” The Court recorded that the mutual consent divorce was initiated and that “the Petitioner, out of agreed Rs.37,00,000/- deposited six FDRs of total amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in the name of Respondent No.2 and the children.”
It stated the petitioner’s own averments that after recording of first motion on 05.10.2018, “he failed to appear after 08.09.2019 and eventually the Petition was dismissed in default on 01.09.2021.” The restoration bid and the subsequent challenge were also noted: “Petition filed to challenged the said Order also got dismissed on 21.10.2022.”
On the contents of settlement and performance, the Court observed: “first and foremost, the Settlement agreement has not been placed on record.” It pointed to what appears in the Section 13B petition, “wherein not only is there a mention of the deposit of six FDRs for total sum of Rs.30,00,000/- but also of payment of additional Rs.7,00,000/-, at the time of recording the statement for second motion.”
Regarding non-release of amounts, the Court recorded: “though Rs.30,00,000/- have been deposited, but 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.” It further noted: “Respondent No.2 had sought money for the marriage of the daughter, but the Petitioner was not forthcoming and she had to arrange the funds from her own and other sources to get her daughter married.”
On implementation, the Court 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.”
Concerning the petitioner’s absence for second motion, the Court recorded: “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.” It added that “there exists no ground for restoration of the Divorce Petition filed by mutual consent. Moreso, Respondent No.2 had not consented to such restoration.”
The Court observed: “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 who admittedly failed to appear in the Family Court resulting in the dismissal of Divorce Petition.” It concluded that “it cannot be held that the parties having acted upon the Settlement.”
The Court held: “There is no ground for quashing of the present FIR No.0182/2005 on the basis of settlement. Petition is dismissed as being without merits. The pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP
Case Title: XXX v. State & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9440
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5386/2018
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
