Foreign divorce decree with full settlement bars criminal case in India, rules HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes are liable to be quashed if the parties residing and litigating abroad have amicably resolved all issues, including Istridhan and divorce, through a binding settlement that has attained finality in a foreign court. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri ruled that continuation of criminal proceedings in India, in such a case, would constitute an “abuse of process of law”, especially when the FIR was lodged months after the dissolution of marriage without disclosing the prior amicable settlement and decree of divorce. The assertion came as Justice Puri allowing two connected petitions—one by the husband and another by his parents—for quashing an FIR registered on February 14, 2020, at the women police station in Bathinda. The petitioners were represented by advocate Sukhandeep Singh, while GS Bhullar appeared for the state. The Union of India was represented by senior panel counsel Vipul Aggarwal. The couple solemnised marriage in India on December 22, 2015, but filed for divorce shortly thereafter in the United States on February 1, 2016. A comprehensive settlement agreement resolving all matrimonial disputes, including those related to children, property, finances, Istridhan, and support was executed on June 20, 2019, and the marriage was formally dissolved through a US court decree dated July 30, 2019. Despite that, the wife’s father lodged the FIR nearly seven months later in India, alleging dowry harassment and non-return of Istridhan—without disclosing the prior settlement or the divorce decree. Justice Puri observed: “A perusal of the annexures would show that the entire dispute has been settled between the parties but the same was not disclosed by the complainant at the time of the lodging of the present FIR… Even all the articles of Istridhan pertaining to gold items etc. were also settled between the parties.” Rejecting the state counsel’s contention that the FIR should survive against the husband alone, the court held: “The matrimonial dispute was settled between husband and wife with her consent which culminated into divorce, and therefore, there is no justification as to why the prosecution against the husband should also continue.” Holding the criminal proceedings to be legally untenable, Justice Puri concluded: “The FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.”