The Delhi High Court held that an FIR under Section 498A IPC cannot be quashed based on an unexecuted settlement, ruling that the husband’s failure to honour the agreed terms rendered the compromise ineffective.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, in a ruling, has reiterated that criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC unless the settlement agreement between the parties has been fully executed and acted upon.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a husband’s plea to quash an FIR for dowry harassment registered in 2005, observing that the failure of the settlement was solely attributable to the husband, who failed to appear before the Family Court for the second motion in divorce proceedings.
Background
The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife were married on 25 January 1991 and had two children. They had been living separately since 2005.
Following allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty, the wife complained on 26 October 2005, leading to FIR No. 0182/2005 under Sections 498A/406 IPC at Police Station Tuglak Road, New Delhi. A chargesheet was later filed, and the matter remained pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
In October 2018, the parties entered into a settlement whereby the husband agreed to pay ₹37,00,000 in full and final settlement of all claims. Pursuant to this, a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Family Court, Jodhpur.
The husband deposited six Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) worth ₹30,00,000, to be released only upon quashing of the FIR. The balance of ₹7,00,000 was to be paid at the time of the second motion.
However, after the first motion was allowed on 5 October 2018, the husband failed to appear for subsequent hearings, citing professional obligations in Dubai and the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the divorce petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 1 September 2021, and his restoration plea was rejected in 2022.
Arguments before the Court
Petitioner’s Contentions
The husband contended that:
- He had complied with the settlement by depositing ₹30 lakh in FDRs.
- His inability to appear for the second motion was due to urgent work commitments and pandemic restrictions.
- The wife’s refusal to consent to quashing the FIR was “an abuse of process”; and
- He was ready to pay the remaining ₹7 lakh as per the agreement.
He sought the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the dispute was essentially matrimonial and had been amicably resolved.
Respondent’s Submissions
The wife argued that:
- The settlement failed due to the Petitioner’s own default.
- She entered into the settlement under duress and out of concern for her daughter’s impending marriage;
- No settlement amount was ever released to her, and
- The husband had abandoned his responsibilities toward the family.
She expressly refused to consent to the quashing of the FIR, recording her opposition before the High Court on 22 November 2022.
Court’s Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized that the foundation of the quashing petition was the 2018 settlement. The Court noted that:
“The settlement was never implemented or executed. Though the parties entered into an agreement, it was never acted upon by the Petitioner.”
The Court observed that:
- Neither the balance amount of ₹7 lakh was paid, nor were the ₹30 lakh FDRs released.
- The divorce petition was dismissed solely due to the Petitioner’s non-appearance; and
- The Respondent’s refusal to cooperate was justified, given the husband’s non-performance.
The Court further remarked:
“Merely depositing cheques or FDRs that have not been released does not amount to execution of a settlement. The onus of the settlement’s failure lies entirely upon the Petitioner.”
Holding that “there is nothing to show that the settlement has ever been acted upon”, the High Court found no basis for quashing the FIR.
The petition was therefore dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the criminal proceedings under FIR No. 0182/2005 were directed to continue before the trial court.
This decision reaffirms an important legal principle: mere execution of a settlement document does not automatically justify the quashing of criminal proceedings. The settlement must be substantially performed, reflecting good faith and mutual compliance.
The ruling aligns with prior Supreme Court precedents, such as:
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and
- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466,
which cautions that courts must verify actual implementation of settlements before exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title:
ARVIND BHATNAGAR versus STATE & Ors.
CRL.M.C. 5386/2018, CRL.M.A. 6038/2022 & 7897/2023
READ JUDGMENT