The Delhi High Court recently rejected a plea by a man seeking quashing of a cruelty case filed against him by his wife, despite the fact that he had arrived at a settlement with the wife by paying ₹45 lakh to her.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh refused to quash the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after noting that that even after settling the dispute, the husband did not comply with the terms of settlement and subjected his wife to torture and cruelty.
Further, the Court noted the wife's argument that the man had already taken back the amount given to her at the time of settlement and also took away her hard earned money which she earned by running an independent boutique
Therefore, the wife’s cause of action still persists, the Court said.
"This Court does not find any reason to quash the impugned FIR as the cause of action still persists and the settlement as arrived by the parties was never abided by the petitioner and he subjected his wife to torture and cruelty, a condition necessary to attract the framing of charges under 498A of the IPC. In view of the same, it is held that the petitioner has been unable to put forth any propositions warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court as the petitioner’s conduct still includes the criminal nature of the offence for which he was charged with under the aforesaid FIR," the Court said.
Pertinently, the Court said that even though it has wide inherent powers to quash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash cases, the same should be used sparingly and only in those cases where no harm may be caused to the society.
Offences pertaining to the matrimonial relationships must not be quashed in a routine manner, especially if the victim of the said offence has opposed the said quashing by denying the settlement, the single-judge underscored.
The couple got married in 2012. The wife lodged a first information report (FIR) in 2015 alleging harassment by the husband and family.
The couple settled their dispute as per a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 2016.
As per the MOU, the parties decided to mutually file for divorce on the condition that the husband pays ₹45 lakh to the wife and that the wife withdraws the domestic violence case against him.
The couple resumed cohabitation leading to a child being born. In 2017, the wife left her marital house again due to alleged physical and mental cruelty meted out by the husband pertaining to dowry demand.
In 2022, the trial court framed charges against the husband for offences of cruelty and harassment, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal breach of trust.
The wife submitted that the husband is a habitual drinker and used to abuser her physically and verbally for not bringing enough dowry. She further submitted that the settlement under MOU had become null and void since divorce had not taken effect.
Further, she claimed that the petitioner had already taken back the amount given to her at the time of settlement.
The husband countered by stating that the wife is playing fraud on him by making false and vexatious statements and wriggling out of the terms of settlement. Further, he submitted that the wife's allegations have not been substantiated.
The Court took note of a medical certificate indicating that the wife was subjected to serious physical abuse by her husband.
The Court observed that even after the MOU, subsequent events suggested that the husband and his family members continued to harass the wife physically and mentally.
“The instant case is a textbook example of how the affluent people try to flout the law by coercing the aggrieved party to settle the dispute, despite the offense being criminal in nature and approach the Courts citing such settlement deed,” the Court observed while dismissing the husband's petition.
The husband was represented by advocate Sahil Gupta.
Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan appeared for State. Advocate Archit Singh appeared for the wife.
[Read Order]