Supreme Court Quashes Matrimonial FIRs Against Husband and In‑laws After Mutual Divorce and Settlement

A bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice K. V. Viswanathan heard an appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.16217 of 2024 against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s order dated 01.08.2024 which had dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.67 of 2019 registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamunanagar, under Sections 323, 406, 498‑A and 506 IPC against the erstwhile husband and his parents.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet dated 07.11.2019 and all proceedings arising therefrom. The judges observed that the matrimonial relationship had ended by mutual consent, the parties had effected a full and final compromise, and the complainant expressed no objection to quashing the prosecution; continuing the proceedings would serve no legitimate purpose and would amount to harassment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the power under Article 142 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in matters of this nature. 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 law must be applied in a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse. In appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring quietus to personal disputes that have run their course. The aforesaid facts noted above reflect that both parties are not interested in pursuing the criminal proceeding.” The Court also quoted that “criminal law is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment” and relied on its precedents where prosecution arising out of matrimonial discord was quashed when parties had settled and the continuation of trial would be futile.

Background The marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 06.03.2018. About ten months later the wife left the matrimonial home with her daughter from an earlier marriage. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint that led to registration of FIR No.67 dated 15.05.2019 alleging offences under Sections 323, 406, 498‑A and 506 IPC; a chargesheet followed on 07.11.2019. The parties obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 19.01.2024 and, according to the record, effected a compromise in full and final settlement of all claims; respondent No.2 filed a reply in the High Court stating she had no objection to quashing the FIR. The High Court dismissed the Section 482 petition, observing that certain allegations regarding victimisation of the child were sufficiently substantiated. On appeal the Supreme Court examined whether its extraordinary powers under Article 142 could be invoked to do “complete justice” where matrimonial relations had ended and the complainant no longer wished to pursue prosecution. The Court analysed its earlier decisions including Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana and other recent rulings where it had quashed matrimonial prosecutions to prevent misuse of criminal law and to avoid futile prosecutions. Applying that principle to the present facts—mutual divorce, final settlement, withdrawal of other proceedings and no objection from the complainant—the Court found continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process and allowed the appeal. The chargesheet, FIR and all consequent proceedings were quashed and the High Court order dated 01.08.2024 was set aside.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 963 Case Title: Navneesh Aggarwal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri Abhinav Ramkrishna (Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Sri Shekhar Raj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General (for the State)