After Divorce, Should Criminal Cases Continue? Supreme Court Says No in 'Appropriate Cases'

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Vishwanathan ruled that in such cases, the power to quash proceedings is necessary to uphold fairness and to bring quietus to personal disputes that have run their course.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Navneesh Aggarwal and his parents challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order of August 1, 2024, which had refused to quash an FIR registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code by his former wife. This was despite the fact that she had no objection to quashing and both parties had ended their relationship through divorce by mutual consent, withdrawing all pending cases.

The bench observed that the High Court has the inherent power to quash a criminal proceeding, complaint, or FIR if satisfied that in view of such settlement, there is little likelihood of conviction and that refusal to quash would result in a miscarriage of justice and defeat the ends of justice. It emphasised that the law must balance addressing genuine grievances with preventing its misuse.

The judges noted that once the marriage has been dissolved and the parties have moved on individually, continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, particularly without specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. It merely prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live.

Finding that both parties were not interested in pursuing the criminal case, the bench stated that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution should be invoked to secure complete justice in such matters.

The court referred to Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025), which held that criminal law should not be used as an instrument of harassment and that judicial scrutiny is essential to guard against misuse. It also relied on Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand (March 19, 2024) and Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi (April 1, 2024), where the Supreme Court, exercising powers under Article 142, had quashed criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord after divorce, holding that continuation of such prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

In the present case, the court quashed the charge sheet and the FIR registered at PS Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings. It set aside the High Court’s order, noting that the prosecution was not in line with the complainant’s current intention.

The bench observed that continuing the criminal proceeding in the peculiar facts of the case would only harass the appellants and serve no fruitful purpose. It underlined that no benefit would come from taking such proceedings to their logical end when the core dispute had already been resolved.

As per the facts, the marriage between the appellant and his former wife was solemnised on March 6, 2018. Due to differences, the wife left the matrimonial home about ten months later with her daughter from a previous marriage. Several cases, including the FIR in question, were subsequently filed. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted on January 19, 2024, and all proceedings filed by her were withdrawn.

When the appellants approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, the plea was dismissed on the ground that certain allegations regarding the victimisation of the child were sufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court, however, found that in light of the mutual settlement and the absence of intent to prosecute, the continuation of the case was unwarranted.