The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man and his elderly parents, ruling that the ex-wife abused the legal process by continuing to pursue a criminal case against her former husband's family even after consenting to a divorce and accepting Rs 20 lakh as permanent alimony.
Court Order Details
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court passed the order on a petition filed by Satyapal Sharma, aged 65, and his wife Sita Devi, aged 62 — the parents-in-law of the complainant Prachi. The court emphasized that once the marriage had been dissolved and the woman had accepted a full and final settlement, persisting with criminal proceedings against the family served no purpose other than harassment.
Background of the Dispute
The marriage between the complainant and the petitioners' son took place on November 27, 2009. After marital discord, the complainant filed an FIR in 2013 against the entire family, including her husband and his parents, under Sections 498A, 406, 302, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
In 2018, a chargesheet was filed, and charges were framed against the petitioners and their son before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. During the pendency of the criminal trial, the husband filed for divorce. The Family Court in Jaipur dissolved the marriage on October 18, 2019. The complainant challenged this before the Rajasthan High Court, where a compromise was reached.
Compromise Terms
Under the compromise, the husband agreed to pay Rs 20 lakh as permanent alimony, and the wife's appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on December 12, 2024. A decree of divorce was formally prepared on February 17, 2025. Despite receiving the full alimony amount and consenting to the divorce, the complainant neither appeared before the trial court to record her evidence nor withdrew the criminal case. The court noted that since 2018, neither the complainant nor any of her witnesses had appeared in the witness box despite several summons being issued.
Court's Observations
The High Court observed that the complainant, "having received the decree of divorce from the husband without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, cannot now be allowed to go back upon their proclaimed stand and take a somersault." The court further found that the settlement clearly covered both the matrimonial and criminal proceedings. It stated that "from the agreements entered into between the parties and which are confirmed by her in Court, no doubt is left that this was a compromise/settlement for divorce by consent decree as well as for quashing the criminal proceedings."
By refusing to honor that agreement, the court said the complainant "is certainly misusing the process of the Court." The court added: "This clearly indicates a reverse trend where the wife despite having compromised the dispute with her husband and on that basis obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent, yet want the prosecution against the husband and his family members to continue so that they are compelled to go through the ordeal of attending the protracted proceedings in the criminal cases, and suffer ignominy of facing the whole process of trial."
Supreme Court Precedent
The court also cited the Supreme Court's observations in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), which noted that many complaints under Section 498A IPC "are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations" and that courts must be "extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints." It reiterated that "court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution."
Final Ruling
The court concluded that "continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners tantamounts to abuse of process of law" and quashed all criminal proceedings pending against the two petitioners — the husband's parents — and allowed the petition.
