The Supreme Court held that continuing criminal proceedings after divorce, without specific allegations, only prolongs bitterness and burdens the justice system. The ruling came while quashing an FIR against a man and his family in a matrimonial dispute.
New Delhi: On August 13, the Supreme Court of India has recently ruled that if a marriage has already ended in divorce and both the husband and wife have moved forward in their individual lives, then continuing criminal cases against the family members—especially when there are no clear and direct allegations—does not serve any real purpose.
The court said such cases only keep bitterness alive and put an unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system.
Also Read:Husband Giving Time, Money To Mother Not Domestic Violence: Court to Wife
This decision came while the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order, which had earlier dismissed the husband’s plea to quash a criminal case.
The husband had approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), asking for the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
However, the High Court refused, saying that some allegations about the harassment of the wife’s child had been substantiated.
A Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed,
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the power under Article 142 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in matters of this nature. Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on in their lives individually, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live.”
In this case, the marriage between the first appellant (husband) and the second respondent (wife) had taken place in 2018.
But due to differences, the wife left the matrimonial home after about ten months, taking along her daughter from her earlier marriage. After this separation, several cases were filed by both sides.
One of these was an FIR filed by the wife under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC.
Later, when the couple got divorced, the husband applied for quashing of the FIR, but the High Court refused to do so. The matter then went to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, while explaining its reasoning, said it has consistently held in past cases that when a marriage ends in divorce and both sides have settled into their separate lives, criminal cases from that old relationship should not be allowed to continue just for harassment.
It also referred to previous judgments where, using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it had quashed criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes.
The court noted,
“In appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring quietus to personal disputes that have run their course. The aforesaid facts noted above reflect that both parties are not interested in pursuing the criminal proceeding.”
Looking at the facts of this case, the Bench pointed out that both husband and wife had accepted the divorce decree given by the Family Court, which had become final.
They had also entered into a compromise agreement to settle all their claims. Under this agreement, all disputes between them were resolved and all other pending cases were withdrawn.
Therefore, using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and all related criminal proceedings against the husband and his family members.
ALSO READ: SC to Review Unilateral Divorce Rights for Muslim Women via Khula
Allowing the appeal, the Bench observed,
“Moreover, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would only be an instance of harassment to the appellants having regard to the peculiar facts of the case. Further, no fruitful purpose would be served in the continuation of the court proceedings and taking it to its logical end.”
Advocate Piyush Singhal appeared for the appellant along with AOR Abhinav Ramkrishna and Advocates Chandni Singh, Jayendra Tiwari, Ishpreet Singh, and Khushi Thawal.
The respondent was represented by DAG Shekhar Raj Sharma along with AOR Akshay Amritanshu and Advocates Nidhi Narwal, Drishti Rawal, Drishti Saraf, Sarthak Srivastava, and Mayur Goyal.
Case Title:
A v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 963).
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce
