The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute after the couple settled and divorced by mutual consent, rejecting the lower court’s reliance on the husband’s prior absconding status.
The FIR alleged cruelty, criminal breach of trust, hurt and intimidation. The High Court declined to terminate the case because the husband left for Canada after securing bail and was declared a proclaimed offender.
The Supreme Court said the subsequent settlement changed the practical and legal context. The parties confirmed that alimony and other obligations had been fulfilled, and the complainant supported quashing. With the marriage legally ended and the dispute resolved, continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.
By setting aside the High Court order and quashing the proceedings in their entirety, the Court treated the settlement as decisive to the restorative outcome. It did not excuse the husband’s earlier conduct in the abstract; it concluded that the prosecution could not usefully continue once the complainant had voluntarily resolved her claims.
