While quashing a criminal case registered against a man and his family members, the Supreme Court has held that 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.

The Apex Court was considering a challenge laid against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant husband under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Division Bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V Viswanathan stated, “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.”

Advocate Piyush Singhal represented the Appellant while DAG Shekhar Raj Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the first appellant and the second respondent was solemnized in the year 2018. Owing to certain differences arising between them, the second respondent left the matrimonial home around ten months after the marriage along with her daughter from an earlier marriage. Subsequent to this, multiple cases came to be filed by both the parties. Among these there was an FIR registered pursuant to a complaint by respondent wife against the appellant husband under sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the IPC.

After divorce was granted, the appellant husband sought quashing of the complaint, but the High Court dismissed the same on the ground that certain allegations regarding the victimization of the child had been sufficiently substantiated. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Apex Court, at the outset, explained as to how it has consistently taken the view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment. Reference was also made to various judgments where while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court has quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord against the husband.

“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”, it added.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appellant and respondent wife had accepted the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, which had attained finality. A compromise decree in full and final settlement of all claims had further been effectuated between the parties by way of which all the differences between them came to be resolved and all other pending cases between the parties came to be withdrawn.

Thus, invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the chargesheet as well as the FIR against the appellants under sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC and all other criminal proceedings commenced pursuant thereto. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench said, “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.”

Cause Title: A v. State Of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 963)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Piyush Singhal, AOR Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advocates Chandni Singh, Jayendra Tiwari, Ishpreet Singh, Khushi Thawal

Respondent: D.A.G Shekhar Raj Sharma, AOR Akshay Amritanshu, Advocates Nidhi Narwal, Drishti Rawal, Drishti Saraf, Sarthak Srivastava, Mayur Goyal

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice BV NagarathanaJustice KV Viswanathan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.