CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Continuing Criminal Proceedings Post-Settlement Serves No Purpose’: Supreme Court Quashes 498A Case After Divorce

13 August 2025 3:18 PM

By: sayum


“Once the marital relationship has ended… continuation of criminal proceedings serves no legitimate purpose” – Supreme Court quashed a dowry-cruelty case under Sections 323, 406, 498A, and 506 IPC after the parties’ marriage had ended in divorce by mutual consent, holding that prolonging such prosecution post-settlement only perpetuates bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to “advance the cause of complete justice” after noting that all disputes between the estranged couple had been resolved, all pending litigations withdrawn, and the complainant wife had no objection to quashing the case.

The marriage between appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 6 March 2018. Less than a year later, the wife left the matrimonial home, leading to a series of legal proceedings, including FIR No. 67 of 2019 registered at Police Station Radaur, Haryana, alleging cruelty, assault, criminal breach of trust, and intimidation. A chargesheet followed in November 2019.

In January 2024, the Family Court granted a mutual consent divorce, accompanied by a full and final settlement. Yet, when the appellants sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused, citing allegations of “victimisation of the child”.

The Supreme Court took a different view, stressing that matrimonial criminal prosecutions cannot be allowed to linger when the dispute is dead. Citing Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Bench warned against the “recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement… criminal law is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment.”

Justice Nagarathna, writing for the Court, observed: “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.”

The judgment drew strength from earlier rulings in Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand (2024), Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024), and Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), all of which recognised the propriety of quashing criminal cases post-divorce when the parties have amicably settled.

Ultimately, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and all proceedings arising from them, holding that the wife’s lack of intent to prosecute, coupled with the complete resolution of disputes, made continuation “an instance of harassment” rather than justice.

Date of Decision: 12 August 2025

Latest Legal News