Criminal proceedings against the husband and relatives were quashed after a mutual-consent divorce and settlement.

Respondent No. 2, the wife of petitioner No. 1, lodged a complaint alleging offences against him, his parents (petitioners Nos. 2 and 3), and his married sisters (petitioners Nos. 4 and 5).

The resulting charge sheet led to C.C. No. 26/2026, alleging offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 127(2), 74, 351, 352 and 49 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The spouses subsequently petitioned for divorce by mutual consent; their settlement provided that the wife would withdraw the criminal case.

The Family Court granted a decree of divorce on 9 February 2026 after recording their joint memo, which also recorded payment of ₹7,51,000 as permanent alimony.

The wife did not withdraw the criminal case and, although served with notice of this petition, did not appear to contest it.

The accused petitioned under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings.

Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings following the spouses’ mutual-consent divorce and settlement.

Whether the proceedings should also be quashed against the husband’s parents and married sisters in light of the resolution of the matrimonial dispute.

The Court considered its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash criminal proceedings.

It also considered the charged offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 127(2), 74, 351, 352 and 49 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

No precedents or more detailed legal test for exercising the quashing power were cited; the Court’s stated basis was the settlement and conclusion of the matrimonial dispute.

The Court relied on the mutual-consent divorce decree and the joint memo recording the settlement, including the alimony payment and the wife’s undertaking to withdraw the criminal case.

It noted that the wife had not withdrawn the case and had not contested the quashing petition despite service.

On those facts, the Court concluded that the matrimonial dispute had ended and that no case should continue against the husband’s parents and sisters; it found sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against all petitioners.