Recently, the Delhi High Court held that criminal proceedings once quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement and marriage between the parties cannot be revived merely because matrimonial disputes arise thereafter. The Court observed that permitting such revival would undermine the finality of judicial orders passed under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Brief facts:
The case arose from an FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 313 and 506 of the IPC on allegations that the Respondent had established a physical relationship with the Applicant on the assurance of marriage and had caused termination of her pregnancy against her will. Subsequently, the parties solemnised their marriage. Thereafter, the Respondent approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the disputes had been amicably resolved and the parties had married. Accepting the settlement and the statements made by the Applicant before the Court, the FIR was quashed in December, 2024. The present application was later filed seeking the recall of that order.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The Applicant contended that she had agreed to the quashing of the FIR only because she was assured that the marriage would be honoured sincerely. The Counsel argued that the marriage was merely a device adopted to avoid criminal prosecution and that, after quashing of the FIR, she was subjected to physical violence, emotional abuse, financial exploitation and threats. According to the Applicant, these subsequent events demonstrated that the quashing order had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent argued that the recall application was not maintainable since the quashing order was a final judicial order. It was submitted that once the order attained finality, the Court became functus officio and was barred from reviewing or recalling it in view of Section 362 of the CrPC. The Respondent further contended that the allegations relied upon by the Applicant related entirely to events occurring after the quashing order and could not retrospectively invalidate the settlement or the judicial order passed on its basis.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Amit Mahajan noted that criminal courts do not possess any inherent power of substantive review akin to civil courts and that once a final order is passed, the Court becomes functus officio. The Court observed, “criminal courts do not possess any inherent power of substantive review analogous to civil jurisdiction and once an order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court should be slow in again exercising these powers to recall such order, passed to prevent abuse of process of law, on account of any alleged breach of conditions agreed to by the parties.”
The Court held that the quashing order was not based merely on an expectation that the marriage would remain harmonious in the future. Instead, it rested on the Applicant's voluntary statements before the Court, the admitted fact of marriage, her affidavit supporting quashing, and an independent judicial examination of the legal principles governing the case. The Court observed, “the order dated 03.12.2024 was not founded merely upon a speculative expectation of future matrimonial harmony but upon contemporaneous statements voluntarily made before the Court coupled with the admitted factum of marriage between the parties.”
The Bench further noted that the allegations of cruelty, assault, emotional abuse, threats and other matrimonial disputes relied upon by the Applicant related to events that allegedly occurred after the FIR had already been quashed. The Court observed, “even if assumed to be correct, [these allegations] themselves do not inevitably establish that the statements made before this Court on 03.12.2024 were false to the knowledge of the parties at that stage or that the order itself was procured by practising fraud upon the Court.”
The Court further observed that subsequent matrimonial discord cannot be used as a basis to reopen a concluded criminal proceeding. The Bench observed, “the subsequent matrimonial disputes and acrimony sought to be projected by either side cannot enlarge the limited jurisdiction of this Court in a recall application and even commission of fresh offences cannot automatically lead to the inference that the settlement recorded earlier or the judicial order passed thereupon stood vitiated ab initio by fraud.”
The Court ultimately emphasised the importance of finality in criminal proceedings quashed on the basis of settlement and reconciliation. The Court observed, “If every subsequent matrimonial disagreement, breakdown of marriage, or allegation arising after quashing were permitted to revive concluded criminal proceedings, no order passed on the basis of settlement or reconciliation would ever attain finality. The jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is intended to secure finality to such settlements and prevent continuation of criminal proceedings where parties themselves choose to bury their disputes.”
The decision of the Court:
Finding no merit in the recall application, the Court dismissed the same and declined to reopen the earlier order quashing the FIR.
Case Title: Ashwini Pal Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 5219/2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Nandan Kumar Rai, Adv. Gajendra Mohan Thakur
Advocate for the Respondent: SI Prashant Malik
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
