Rajasthan HC Quashes Section 498-A Trial Against Parents-in-Law After Divorce Decree and Rs 20 Lakh Alimony Settlement

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that continuing criminal proceedings against parents-in-law, after a consent divorce and full alimony payment, amounted to abuse of process of court.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has quashed criminal proceedings pending against a couple who were accused as parents-in-law in a dowry harassment case, after finding that the complainant-wife had already accepted Rs 20 lakh as permanent alimony and consented to a divorce decree before the Division Bench of the same court. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, allowed the quashing petition filed by Satyapal Sharma and his wife Sita Devi, holding that the wife's continued absence from the trial witness box — despite receiving the full settlement amount — exposed the prosecution as a tool of harassment rather than a genuine grievance. The order was passed on 21 May 2026 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4251/2022.

The Criminal Case and Its Long Pendency

The dispute traces back to FIR No.327/2013 registered at Police Station Niwai, District Tonk. The complainant, Smt. Pinki @ Prachi, lodged the FIR against her husband Viklesh @ Vikki and his entire family, including the petitioners, who are his parents. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 302, 323, 341, 354, 506, 114, 406, 498-A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk. Charges were ultimately framed on 29.08.2018 against the petitioners and their son for offences under Section 498-A and Section 406 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The criminal case was numbered as Criminal Case No.794/2017 before that court.

From 2018 onwards, neither the complainant nor her family members appeared in the witness box to record their evidence. By the time the quashing petition was heard, more than eight years had passed since charges were framed, and the complainant's statements had not been recorded despite several notices and summons being issued by the Trial Court.

Divorce Petition, Family Court Decree, and the Division Bench Settlement

While the criminal trial remained stalled, the petitioners' son filed a divorce petition on 19.12.2013 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court No.3, Jaipur. The Family Court allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorce on 18.10.2019, dissolving the marriage.

The complainant challenged that decree before the High Court by filing D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5735/2019. That appeal was taken up by a Division Bench. During the proceedings, a compromise was reached: the complainant agreed to accept Rs 20,00,000 (twenty lakh rupees) as a lump-sum permanent alimony. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on 12.12.2024, directing the husband to deposit the amount by demand draft before the Registrar (Judicial) within two months. The husband complied, and a decree of divorce was formally prepared by the Registrar (Judicial) on 17.02.2025.

Despite receiving the full alimony amount and consenting to the divorce, the complainant did not appear before the Trial Court to record her evidence, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners continued.

The Petitioners' Case for Quashing

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, argued before Justice Dhand that the continuation of the criminal proceedings after the matrimonial dispute had been fully settled amounted to an abuse of process of law. He pointed out that the proceedings had been pending since 2013 — over thirteen years — and that the complainant's refusal to appear in the witness box, even after receiving Rs 20 lakh and consenting to the divorce, demonstrated that the prosecution was being used solely to harass the petitioners.

Counsel relied on two precedents: the co-ordinate Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Mukesh Jangid v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) 500, and the Supreme Court's judgment in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667.

The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, opposed the prayer but was unable to controvert the factual submissions made by the petitioners' counsel. The complainant, Respondent No.2, did not appear despite being served notice on two occasions.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Dhand accepted the factual matrix as largely undisputed. The marriage had taken place on 27.11.2009. The FIR was lodged against the entire family. Charges were framed in 2018. Since then, the complainant had not stepped into the witness box. The divorce had been finalised by consent, and the alimony had been paid in full.

The court identified what it called a “reverse trend” in such cases: a wife who has compromised the matrimonial dispute, obtained a consent divorce, and received a lump-sum settlement, yet continues to pursue the criminal case against the husband and his family. Justice Dhand held that the husband had discharged his part of the compromise obligation and that the wife, having received the decree of divorce without contest on the basis of the agreed terms, could not be permitted to resile from that position.

The court held that the complainant was estopped from withdrawing her undertaking and that doing so would amount to misleading the court. It observed that the criminal proceedings were clearly intended to compel the accused to endure protracted trial attendance, incur expenses, and suffer mental agony — not to secure any genuine criminal justice outcome.

Justice Dhand drew on the Supreme Court's analysis in Preeti Gupta, where the apex court had observed that a large number of complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment without proper deliberation, and that courts must take pragmatic realities into account in matrimonial cases. The Supreme Court had noted in that judgment that “long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness” and that the tendency to implicate the husband's close relations is not uncommon.

The court also applied the ratio from Mukesh Jangid, where a co-ordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had quashed proceedings in an identical situation — a wife who had received lump-sum alimony and a consent divorce decree but continued to pursue the criminal case against her husband and in-laws. Justice Dhand found the facts of the present case to be squarely similar.

On the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court reiterated that where the veiled object behind a prosecution is to harass the accused, and where the ends of justice require quashing, the High Court is entitled to exercise that power even over the objection of the complainant. The court observed that court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

Outcome

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4251/2022. The entire proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No.794/2017 pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk — which arose from FIR No.327/2013 — were quashed and set aside insofar as they related to the petitioners, Satyapal Sharma and Sita Devi. The stay application and all other pending applications in the petition were disposed of.