Textbook Example Of How Affluent People Try To Flout The Law By Coercing Aggrieved Party To Settle Dispute: Delhi HC Refuses To Quash Cruelty Case
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition of a man seeking to quash a cruelty case filed against him by his wife, despite the fact that they had reached a settlement involving a payment of ₹45 lakh.
The couple, who married in 2012, had seen their relationship deteriorate after the wife filed a first information report (FIR) in 2015, alleging harassment from her husband and his family. In 2016, they reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which the husband agreed to pay ₹45 lakh to his wife in exchange for her withdrawal of the domestic violence case, and they also agreed to file for mutual divorce. Following this settlement, they briefly resumed cohabitation, during which they had a child. However, by 2017, the wife left the marital home again, citing ongoing physical and mental cruelty, including demands for dowry.
In 2022, the trial court formally charged the husband with cruelty, harassment, voluntary causing hurt, and criminal breach of trust. The wife contended that the husband had a history of alcohol abuse and subjected her to physical and verbal abuse due to dowry-related issues. She argued that the MOU had effectively become void since the divorce was never finalized and claimed the husband had taken back the settlement amount.
A Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh 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."
Advocate Sahil Gupta appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan appeared for the respondents.
The Court remarked that the husband had failed to present any compelling reasons that would warrant the court's inherent powers to quash the case, noting that his conduct still reflected the criminal nature of the alleged offenses.
The Court further explained that while the Court possesses wide-ranging powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash cases, such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where doing so would not harm societal interests. It highlighted that offenses related to matrimonial relationships should not be dismissed routinely, especially when the victim opposes such quashing and disputes the legitimacy of the settlement.
The Court considered a medical certificate indicating that the wife had suffered significant physical abuse at the hands of her husband.
The Court's observation underscored that even after the MOU, subsequent events demonstrated that the husband and his family continued to harass the wife. The Court said, “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.”
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the husband’s petition, reinforcing the principle that such cases of domestic abuse must be taken seriously and should not be easily dismissed.
Cause Title: Rachit Jain v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., [2024:DHC:8038]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Sahil Gupta
Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, and Advocate Archit Singh