1. Matrimonial dispute — Divorce decree — Subsequent criminal complaints under Sections 494 and 498A IPC and Domestic Violence Act — Amicable settlement via Lok Adalat. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1213
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. V. NAGARATHNA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao – Appellant
Versus
Madduri Sunanda & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.1802-1803 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5758-5759 of 2022)
Decided On : 30-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Mr. Tamim Qadri, Adv. Mr. Saeed Qadri, Adv. Mr. Saahil Gupta, Adv. Mr. Danish Ali, Adv. Ms. Radha Meena, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. P. Sundar Rao, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Panwar, Adv. Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, Adv. Mr. C. K. Rai, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR (Not present) Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. (Not present) Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. (Not present)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Mr. Tamim Qadri, Adv. Mr. Saeed Qadri, Adv. Mr. Saahil Gupta, Adv. Mr. Danish Ali, Adv. Ms. Radha Meena, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. P. Sundar Rao, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Panwar, Adv. Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, Adv. Mr. C. K. Rai, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR (Not present) Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. (Not present) Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. (Not present)
In matrimonial disputes, if parties reach a genuine settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process, justifying quashing under Article 142.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 494 and 498A - Appeals against High Court’s refusal to quash legal proceedings initiated under domestic violence allegations - The husband and in-laws, after marriage dissolution, faced multiple civil and criminal proceedings. Settlement achieved through Lok Adalat led to withdrawal of all claims. (Paras 1-3, 10, 17-22)
(B) Abuse of Process - Criminal law is not to be used as a tool for harassment in matrimonial disputes; courts must exercise discretion to prevent misuse of legal provisions. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The marriage between the husband and respondent No.1 ended in divorce. Following the divorce, allegations arose leading to complaints under domestic violence statutes and FIRs against the husband and his family. Respondent No.1 later pursued mediation, and a settlement was reached.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court opted to quash all proceedings against the respondents, holding it within their jurisdiction to ensure justice through Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings serves any legitimate purpose post-divorce and subsequent settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that where parties have amicably settled their disputes, the legal process should not prolong unnecessary conflicts; invoking Article 142 allows quashing trials that become futile.
Result: Appeals allowed; all proceedings quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Appellants seek quashing of criminal proceedings based on Lok Adalat settlement and final divorce; Respondent maintains the High Court's refusal to quash was correct. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. Criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial discord should not linger after divorce and settlement, especially when family members are implicated without specific particulars. (Para 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Under Article 142, criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes may be quashed upon amicable settlement to prevent harassment and ensure complete justice. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 20 , 22 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court order set aside — FIR and all subsequent criminal proceedings quashed under Article 142 of the Constitution. (Para 22 )
6. When is the implication of the husband's family members in matrimonial criminal proceedings considered an abuse of process?
It is an abuse of process when family members are roped into proceedings without specific particulars of their involvement, particularly where they reside separately or have no connection with the matrimonial home. (Para 12 )
7. Can non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes be quashed if the parties reach a settlement?
Yes, the court may quash such proceedings if it is satisfied that the dispute is settled, continuation would be an exercise in futility, and justice demands that peace be restored. (Para 20 , 21 )
8. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings following a settlement?
The Court invokes Article 142 to do complete justice when parties genuinely settle differences, as continuing proceedings would only prolong bitterness and burden the criminal justice system without serving a legitimate purpose. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 22 )
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
Being aggrieved by the common order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the High Court while disposing of Criminal Petition Nos.5270 & 7262 of 2011 refused to quash the legal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, Smt. Madduri Sunanda, against her husband, Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao, and original appellants Nos.1 to 3. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 who were father-in- law and mother-in-law of respondent No.1 respectively died during the pendency of these appeals and therefore the appeals have stood abated vis-à-vis them. Appellant No.3 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.1.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the marriage between Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as “husband”, for the sake of convenience) and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 01.05.2001. Both of them moved to the United States of America on 02.10.2002. After about three years, the relationship between the husband and the wife turned sour and consequently, both parties mutually decided to seek divorce and the same was granted by the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on 15.03.2007.
3. Upon returning to India, on 05.11.2008, respondent No.1 filed a matrimonial suit being O.P. No.1298 of 2008 seeking relief of restitution of conjugal rights. She subsequently filed a police complaint on 20.11.2008 against her husband that finally culminated into Complaint Case No.991 of 2010 before the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 moved a motion before the Superior Court of California to set aside the judgment of divorce, which was dismissed on 19.01.2010. On 08.11.2010, respondent No.1 filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being DVC No. 30 of 2010 before the court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam alleging cruelty by the husband and the appellants herein. Thereafter, she also filed FIR No.28 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011 against the appellants at Gollaparlu Police Station, East Godavari District under Sections 494 and 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “IPC”).
4. Aggrieved by the multiple legal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, the husband and the appellants filed Criminal Petition No.5270/2011 on 28.06.2011 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging Complaint Case No.991/2010. Furthermore, they filed Criminal Petition No.7262/2011 challenging DVC No.30/2010. The husband also filed Criminal Petition No.2851/2011 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) seeking to quash FIR No.28 of 2011.
5. The High Court clubbed the aforementioned Criminal Petition Nos.2851/2011, 5270/2011 and 7262/2011 and disposed them of by the impugned common order dated 30.03.2012. The High Court dismissed all the three criminal petitions observing that respondent No.1 and her husband had lived together before, during and after the divorce proceedings and respondent No.1 had given birth to a child during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Hence, the High Court refused to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned common order of the High Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeals. This Court, vide order dated 17.08.2012, issued notice to the respondents and granted stay of further proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 against the appellants. Further, considering that the matter could be settled through mediation, this Court vide order dated 04.07.2013, directed the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Mediation was unsuccessful. Thereafter, this Court granted leave vide order dated 18.10.2013.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, it appears that respondent No.1 preferred OS No.9 of 2014 on the
