1. Marriage followed by divorce decree — subsequent filing of criminal complaint and FIR for offences under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 787
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Arun Jain & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.- Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1810/2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) NO(S). 9178/2018)
Decided On : 01-04-2024
Important Points
The court established that post-divorce criminal proceedings can be quashed if genuine settlements are present, while also respecting statutory limitations.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C. Sections 482, IPC Sections 498A, 406, 34 - The court interpreted the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 142 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for genuine settlements and the limitations of quashing proceedings post-divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought to quash a complaint filed by the respondent after their divorce, which led to criminal proceedings under IPC sections. The High Court dismissed their application, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstances surrounding the divorce and subsequent complaint warranted the quashing of the criminal proceedings, aligning with precedents that allow for such actions under Article 142 when genuine settlements exist.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated post-divorce should be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 142 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the powers under Article 142 can be exercised to quash proceedings when a genuine settlement exists, but must not disregard statutory provisions.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the criminal proceedings are quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv., Mr. Bhanu Thakur, Adv., Ms. Rosemary Raju, Adv., Mr. S. S. Jauhar, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv., Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv., Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv., Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv., Mr. Bhanu Thakur, Adv., Ms. Rosemary Raju, Adv., Mr. S. S. Jauhar, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv., Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv., Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv., Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — State contended the High Court's dismissal of the quashing application was justified. (Para 2 , 5 , 7 )
3. The court noted the criminal complaint and FIR were filed after the divorce decree and related domestic violence proceedings were dismissed on merits. (Para 11 )
4. The Supreme Court may exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings to do complete justice in peculiar circumstances. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside and criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR quashed. (Para 12 )
6. Under what conditions can the Supreme Court exercise powers under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings?
The Court can exercise these powers to do complete justice and balance equities between parties, provided the order does not directly conflict with express statutory provisions governing the subject. (Para 9 )
7. Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the FIR was registered after a divorce decree?
Yes, where a divorce decree was passed and the FIR was registered subsequently, the Court may exercise powers under Article 142 to quash the complaint and FIR to do complete justice. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. Is the annulment of criminal proceedings based on a compromise permissible after all legal remedies have been exhausted?
No, annulment based on a compromise is impermissible once all legal remedies are exhausted to prevent the accused from gaining indefinite leverage through potentially non-bona fide settlements. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.381/2016 and Crl. M.A. No.1618/2016, by which the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashing of order dated 28.09.2015 of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and issuing summons to the appellants herein as accused on the basis of the final report dated 22.09.2015 made under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C has been dismissed, the appellants are before this Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-State. On perusal of the Office Report, it is noted that the second respondent-complainant is served but has not responded to the same and there is no representation on her behalf.
4. It is not in dispute that the marriage between appellant No.1 and Respondent No.2 took place on 01.11.1996. Thereafter, an ex-parte decree of Divorce was granted by the Family Court, Saket Courts Complex-South District, New Delhi dated 04.04.2013. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 against appellant No. 1 on 31.10.2013. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was registered on 13.02.2014, subsequent to the divorce decree passed by the Family Court on 04.04.2013. On conclusion of the investigation into the First Information Report No.20/2014 in respect of the complaint registered by respondent No.2 herein in Crime Against Women cell, Nanak Pura.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants herein sought quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein as well as all proceedings initiated pursuant to the said complaint by filing their application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court, however, dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 16.07.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants during the course of his submissions relied upon the following judgments of this Court:
1. Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781.
2. Mohd. Miyan and Ors. vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Crl. A. No.1048/2018) dt.21.08.2018.
3. Iqbal Alias Bala and Ors. State of U.P. and Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 734.
4. Malakar and Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. order dated 19.03.24.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent State however supported the impugned order and contended that there is no merit in this appeal.
8. This Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, while considering quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the context of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, took into consideration the fact that there had been a settlement arrived at between the parties in the said case and therefore exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India had quashed the complaint and the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings against the accused therein. The relevant portions of the said judgment are at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 which are extracted as under:
“13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible.
