The Supreme Court of India quashed a criminal case under Section 307 IPC against a husband after he gave a written undertaking to care for his wife and child. Exercising powers under Article 142, the Court held that family welfare and responsible settlement can sometimes serve justice better than continuing criminal trials.
The Supreme Court of India has held that continuing criminal proceedings does not always help the cause of justice, especially in matrimonial disputes where a lawful settlement can protect the welfare of the family.
Emphasising the importance of family stability and responsibility, the Court quashed a criminal case involving serious charges, including attempt to murder, after the husband gave a written undertaking to take proper care of his wife and child.
ALSO READ: Delhi CM Attack Case: Court Frames Attempt to Murder Charges Against Two Accused
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had earlier refused to quash an FIR registered against the husband under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323, 324, 452, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the High Court’s judgment and brought the criminal proceedings to an end, holding that such a step would serve both individual and societal interests by promoting responsibility within the family.
The case arose from FIR No. 93 of 2024 registered at Police Station Dharampur in Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh. The appellant, Bharat Pathania, approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order dated July 23, 2025, by which his plea to quash the criminal proceedings was rejected.
The allegations against him were serious in nature and related to a matrimonial dispute, including claims of physical assault, house trespass, criminal intimidation, and attempt to murder.
While examining the matter, the Supreme Court carefully considered the seriousness of the offences but also took into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The Bench explained that criminal law has a larger social purpose, but courts must also exercise discretion based on the realities of each case.
The Court observed:
“We are mindful that the commission of an offence inevitably implicate broader societal ramifications and invite a response grounded in deterrence. However, the exercise of judicial discretion must be guided by the circumstances of the case.”
The Court further underlined that rigid application of criminal law may not always result in justice, particularly when the dispute is within the family and a lawful resolution can ensure the welfare of the affected parties.
In this context, the Bench stated:
“Where a lawful resolution ensures the welfare of the wife and the child, the continuation of criminal proceedings may not always advance the ends of justice. In such cases, bringing the proceedings to a close may serve both individual and societal interests by encouraging responsibility and stability.”
During the hearing, the appellant appeared before the Court along with his wife. He submitted a written undertaking, marked as Exhibit ‘X’, assuring the Court that he would look after his wife and child “nicely” and “not harm them in any manner whatsoever”.
The Bench took this undertaking on record and also interacted with the appellant to make him fully aware of the serious consequences of violating the assurance given to the Court.
The Supreme Court issued a clear warning to the appellant, making it clear that the relief granted was conditional upon strict compliance with the undertaking.
The Court cautioned:
“We clarify that if, in future, there be any remissness/default/breach on the appellant’s part to honour the undertaking and the same is brought to the notice of this Court by his wife or their child or any relative of the wife, the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant.”
Invoking its wide powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR.
ALSO READ: Delhi CM Attack Case: Court Orders Attempt to Murder Charges Against Two Accused
At the same time, the Bench made it clear that the decision was based on the special facts of the case and should not be treated as a general rule. The Court expressly clarified that
“this order shall not be cited as a precedent in future cases.”
The case was titled and arose out of Criminal Appeal stemming from SLP (Crl.) No. 12798 of 2025.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Senior Advocate Mr. Sukumar Patjoshi appeared for the petitioner along with other counsel, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Satyajit Sarna and other advocates.
Case Title:
Bharat Pathania v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
SLP (Crl.) No. 12798 of 2025.
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Attempt to Murder Case
