The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings stemming from matrimonial disputes can be quashed when the parties have settled their differences and ongoing prosecution serves no legitimate purpose.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2024, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M No.6635 of 2024 by which the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of FIR No.67 dated 15.05.2019 registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamunanagar, Haryana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, initiated under Sections 323 , 406, 498-A and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (‘IPC’), pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar, was dismissed by the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

3. Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the erstwhile husband, father- in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No. 2.

4. We have heard learned counsel Sri Abhinav Ramkrishna for the petitioners and Sri Shekhar Raj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 06.03.2018. Owing to certain differences arising between them, respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home around ten months after the marriage along with her daughter from an earlier marriage. Subsequent to this, multiple cases came to be filed by appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 respectively. Among these was FIR No.67 of 2019 registered pursuant to a complaint by respondent No.2 at P.S Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana against appellant Nos.1 to 3 under sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the IPC. On 7.11.2019, a chargesheet came to be filed in the FIR No.67 of 2019.

6. There was subsequently a decree of divorce by mutual consent granted by the concerned Family Court on 19.01.2024. At this stage, all the pending proceedings that were filed by respondent No.2 came to be withdrawn.

7. 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 a petition under section 482 of CrPC before the High Court. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 also filed her reply to the petition, stating that she had no objection to FIR No.67 of 2019 and associated criminal proceedings being quashed. The High Court however, dismissed the said application. The High Court noted that the case would not be a fit one for quashing, as certain allegations regarding the victimisation of the child had been sufficiently substantiated.

8. Hence, learned counsel for the respective parties have made their submissions in the above backdrop of the aforesaid facts.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that having regard to the fact that both the parties have been since divorced by mutual consent and a compromise decree had been effectuated as well, no purpose would be served by the continuation of the prosecution of the criminal case as against the appellants herein. He further submitted that the divorce decree has attained finality and further, respondent No.2 had no objections to the quashing of the criminal proceedings and the child is also aware of the compromise having been reached by the parties.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the complaint is well-justified having regard to the acts and omissions of the appellants herein. He further submitted that there were specific allegations regarding the victimisation of the child by appellant No.1 and as a result, this would not