Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) based on the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties in the Family Court, a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held the averment made in the petition itself reflected that though a settlement was entered between the parties, but there was never any implementation or execution of the same.
Therefore, the Court stated that there was no ground for quashing the present FIR and disposed of the petition.
Background
The marriage between the petitioner-husband and Respondent 2-wife had been solemnized in 1991, and a daughter and son were born from the wedlock. As the parties had been living separately since 2005, the children resided with their mother.
In 2005, the wife had filed a complaint against her husband accusing him and his parents of dowry harassment, which resulted in registration of present FIR. Husband’s mother was discharged by the Magistrate and his father died during the pendency of the proceedings.
Subsequently, they amicably settled their disputes, wherein the husband agreed to pay Rs 35,00,000 in lieu of all the claims past, present and future in respect of the wife and their children. In 2018, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) was filed before Family Court and the first motion was recorded. Pursuant to this, the husband deposited six Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs 30,00,000 before the Family Court, to be released after quashing of the FIR, with the remaining ₹5,00,000 payable after the decree of divorce.
However, due to the husband’s employment in Dubai and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, he could not appear for the second motion which resulted in dismissal of the divorce petition. Thereafter, he filed an application for restoration which was dismissed. Then, he filed an appeal which was still pending.
Analysis and Decision
The Court highlighted that the settlement agreement was never placed on record. However, its terms were reproduced in the petition under the HMA. Further, the balance amount of Rs 7,00,000 was never deposited, nor was Rs 30,00,000 released to the wife. Further, the Court noted that the wife sought money for the daughter’s marriage, but the husband was not forthcoming, and she had to arrange the funds from her own and other sources to get her daughter married.
The Court opined that the averment made in the petition itself reflected that though a settlement was entered between the parties, there was never any implementation or execution of the same. Further, the Court stated that there was no explanation forthcoming from the husband for non-appearance before the Family Court, which was also reflected in the Rajasthan High Court’s order in the appeal.
The Court opined that there was nothing to show that this settlement has been ever acted upon by the husband. The husband had merely deposited cheques of certain amounts, which were not released to the wife till date, as no divorce by mutual consent fructified, due to husband’s failure to appear in the Family Court resulting in the dismissal of divorce petition. Thus, the Court held that it could not be said that the parties had acted upon the settlement.
Therefore, the Court observed that there was no ground for quashing the present FIR based on settlement and disposed of the application.
[Arvind Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7266, decided on 29-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mahesh Srivastava, Adv
For the Respondent: Ajay Vikram Singh, APP with WSI Urmila Tiwari, PS: CAW Cell, New Delhi
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
