Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Delhi High Court on Quashing of FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC—Settlement Not Acted Upon by Husband.

Update / Judgement Date

29 Oct 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

4 min read

Criminal LawOther Legal Matters
Delhi High Court on Quashing of FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC—Settlement Not Acted Upon by Husband.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Delhi High Court refused to quash FIR No. 0182/2005 registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the husband on the ground that the settlement between the parties was never implemented. The Court observed that mere deposit of money in FDRs without ensuring actual payment and without completion of mutual consent divorce cannot constitute valid settlement compliance. The petitioner’s failure to appear for the second motion in divorce proceedings and his non-performance of settlement obligations rendered the compromise ineffective, and thus, no basis existed for quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.


Background:
  1. The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife married on 25.01.1991 at Lucknow. They have two children.
  2. The wife lodged FIR No. 0182/2005 under Sections 498A/406 IPC alleging dowry harassment.
  3. Petitioner’s mother was discharged in 2017; his father passed away during the proceedings.
  4. On 04.10.2018, the parties reached a settlement where the husband agreed to pay ₹35,00,000 (₹30 lakh via FDRs and ₹5 lakh post-divorce), plus ₹2 lakh towards jewellery and cosmetic items.
  5. A petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in the Family Court, Jodhpur. The first motion was recorded on 05.10.2018.
  6. The husband failed to appear for subsequent hearings citing employment abroad and COVID-19 restrictions, leading to dismissal of the divorce petition on 01.09.2021 for non-prosecution.
  7. His application for restoration and subsequent appeal were dismissed by the Jodhpur courts.
  8. The husband sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., claiming readiness to pay the remaining ₹7,00,000 and asserting that the settlement subsists.


Respondent’s Stand:
  1. The wife opposed the quashing, arguing that the husband never honoured the settlement.
  2. The divorce petition was dismissed due to his non-appearance, and the deposited amount of ₹30,00,000/- was never released.
  3. She stated that she had to independently arrange funds for her daughter’s marriage as the petitioner failed to contribute.
  4. The wife formally recorded her non-consent for quashing before the High Court on 22.11.2022.
  5. The respondent alleged that the husband has been using litigation to delay proceedings and avoid accountability.


Court’s Observations:
  1. The settlement agreement was never placed on record except as reproduced in the mutual consent divorce petition.
  2. The Court noted that although ₹30 lakh was deposited in FDRs, it was never released to the wife and the balance ₹7 lakh was never paid.
  3. The Court emphasized that the petitioner himself failed to appear for the second motion, leading to dismissal of the divorce case.
  4. No explanation was given for his continued absence despite multiple opportunities.
  5. The High Court of Rajasthan had also upheld the dismissal of his restoration plea, noting lack of grounds and the wife’s refusal to consent.
  6. Since the settlement was never executed or acted upon, it could not form the basis for quashing the FIR.


Held:
  1. The alleged compromise was incomplete and ineffective, having failed due to the petitioner’s conduct.
  2. The FIR No. 0182/2005 under Sections 498A/406 IPC cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the strength of an unfulfilled settlement.
  3. Petition was dismissed as being without merit, and pending applications were also disposed of.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Section 498A & 406 IPC – Cruelty and criminal breach of trust in matrimonial relations.
  2. Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent powers of High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law.
  3. Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce by mutual consent.
  4. Order IX Rule 4 CPC – Restoration of suit dismissed for default.

Citation: 2025:DHC: (Judgment dated 29 October 2025)

Case: Arvind Bhatnagar v. State & Anr.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025

Crl.M.C. No.: 5386/2018, Crl.M.A. 6038/2022 & 7897/2023