Courts may quash non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings under Section 528 BNSS after a genuine settlement.

Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 married on 20 April 2022 and began living separately on 2 June 2022. Respondent no. 2’s complaint led to registration of FIR No. 1053/2024 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, alleging cruelty, dowry demands and misappropriation of stridhan.

The parties later entered into a settlement, obtained a mutual-consent divorce decree dated 3 September 2026, and respondent no. 2 confirmed that she had received the full settlement amount of ₹9,60,000 and did not oppose quashing.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether the High Court could quash a non-compoundable matrimonial FIR under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether the circumstances of this case—including dissolution of the marriage, full payment of the settlement amount, and the complainant’s voluntary no-objection—justified quashing the FIR and related proceedings.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from, and not limited by, the statutory power to compound offences under Section 359 BNSS (formerly Section 320 CrPC).

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the High Court may quash non-compoundable proceedings where a dispute is predominantly private, the parties have genuinely settled, and conviction is remote, but ordinarily should not quash heinous or serious offences with substantial societal impact.

Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, further recognises that non-compoundability does not bar quashing of a matrimonial criminal case where the settlement is amicable and voluntary.

Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) is non-compoundable; Section 406 IPC (now Section 316(2) BNS) is compoundable with the requisite permission.

The Court treated the dispute as matrimonial and essentially private, rather than as a heinous offence having a serious impact on society.

The marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent, the full settlement amount had been paid, and respondent no. 2—present in Court and identified by the investigating officer—confirmed her voluntary settlement and no-objection.

The Court also noted that no petitioner had been arrested, no prosecution witness had been examined, and the petitioners had no other criminal antecedents; it therefore found the possibility of conviction remote and continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process.

Applying the cited principles, the non-compoundable nature of the Section 498A charge did not prevent the Court from exercising its inherent quashing power.

It quashed FIR No. 1053/2024, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all proceedings arising from it qua all petitioners.

The parties’ undertaking to abide by the settlement was taken on record; the petition was allowed and the pending application was disposed of.