Criminal proceedings arising from a genuine matrimonial compromise may be quashed to secure finality.

The petitioner faced criminal proceedings arising from Mahila P.S. Case No. 138 of 2017, registered in connection with a matrimonial dispute.

He had been granted provisional bail by the court below pursuant to a compromise between the parties, but the compromise subsequently failed due to continuing marital disputes.

The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arrah, thereafter cancelled the petitioner’s provisional bail by order dated 17 February 2024 in G.R. No. 4837 of 2017.

Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement under which the petitioner agreed to pay ₹17 lakhs to opposite party no. 2 and both parties agreed to cooperate in obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A mutual-consent divorce proceeding was accordingly instituted before the Family Court, Arrah, as Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 366 of 2025.

A dispute arose regarding a ₹15 lakh demand draft, which had initially become invalid due to a defect.

The petitioner later validated the draft, and the amount was released to opposite party no. 2; this fact was admitted by her counsel.

The petitioner thereafter sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, and opposite party no. 2 expressed no objection.

Whether the order dated 17 February 2024 cancelling the petitioner’s provisional bail could be interfered with in view of the subsequent settlement and compliance with the parties’ agreed terms?

Whether the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 138 of 2017 could be quashed on the basis of a genuine compromise and settlement in a matrimonial dispute?

The Court applied the principles governing exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of court and where the dispute is essentially private in nature.

It relied on the principle that matrimonial and other predominantly personal disputes may be quashed after a genuine, voluntary, and complete settlement between the parties, particularly where the victim or complainant has no objection and no overriding public interest is involved.

The Court relied on Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 78, and Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1681, for the proposition that criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes may be quashed pursuant to a compromise to bring the litigation to a peaceful conclusion.

The settlement also involved divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court treated the dispute as a private matrimonial conflict rather than an offence implicating overriding public policy.

It noted that the parties had entered into a subsequent settlement, the agreed payment had been substantially complied with, and the disputed ₹15 lakh draft had ultimately been validated and released to opposite party no. 2.

The parties had also proceeded with divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and opposite party no. 2 did not oppose closure of the criminal case.

In these circumstances, applying the principles in Naushey Ali and Mange Ram, the Court held that sending the matter back to the subordinate court or requiring a fresh application would serve no legitimate purpose.

The absence of coercion, threat, or force, coupled with the genuinely settled nature of the dispute, meant that continuation of the criminal proceeding would constitute an abuse of the process of court and unnecessarily consume judicial time.

It therefore quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 138 of 2017, including the proceeding in G.R. No. 4837 of 2017, and allowed the criminal miscellaneous application along with I.A. No. 1 of 2026.