A matrimonial FIR may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS after a voluntary, fully performed settlement.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of FIR No. 362/2024, registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it.

The FIR followed the complainant’s allegations of dowry-related physical and mental harassment after her marriage to petitioner no. 1; the parties had been living separately since 28 September 2023.

The charge-sheet also included Sections 506/509/354C IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The parties later settled their dispute through mediation. They stated that they had obtained a divorce by khula and that petitioner no. 1 had paid the full settlement amount of Rs. 1,50,000.

Present in court, respondent no. 2 confirmed the settlement was voluntary, acknowledged receipt of the settlement amount and articles, and consented to quashing.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings in light of the parties’ settlement.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve a useful purpose where the dispute was private in nature and the complainant no longer wished to pursue the charges.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied that power to the circumstances of the case, reasoning that where the dispute is primarily private, the parties have amicably settled it, and the complainant does not wish to press charges, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and the FIR may be quashed.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the parties had resolved their dispute through a written mediation settlement, completed the agreed divorce and payment, and appeared before the Court with their identities verified.

Respondent no. 2 confirmed that her consent was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing the FIR.

Given the private nature of the dispute and her decision not to pursue the charges, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and that quashing was appropriate to secure the ends of justice.

It directed that the parties’ original affidavits be submitted to the Trial Court and the concerned SHO/IO within four weeks.

Pending applications were also disposed of.