Criminal proceedings for matrimonial offences may be quashed after settlement and pursuit of mutual-consent divorce.

The applicants—Vinod Chandra Arya alias Vikki, Kamla Devi and Champa—invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of Criminal Case No. 1913 of 2024, Pooja Arya v. Vinod Chandra Arya alias Vikki and Others, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Second, Haldwani, District Nainital. The applicants had been summoned for offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

The dispute arose out of the matrimonial relationship between applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2, who married in 2024 and lived together for approximately twenty days before separating

The parties appeared before the Court and were identified by their respective counsel

They stated that they had amicably settled the dispute and agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent. Permanent alimony of ₹4,00,000 was agreed, of which ₹1,00,000 had already been paid; the balance of ₹3,00,000 was undertaken to be paid at the time of the second motion, fixed for 9 September 2026

The first motion in the mutual-consent divorce proceeding had already been completed

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute after the parties have amicably settled their differences?

Whether the pending criminal proceedings should be terminated where the parties have agreed to obtain a permanent separation through mutual-consent divorce and have filed a compounding application supported by affidavits?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to give effect to an order under the Sanhita, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice

The Court also considered the parties’ compounding application and affidavits, together with the settled principle that criminal proceedings arising predominantly from a matrimonial or personal dispute may be quashed where the parties have genuinely resolved their dispute and continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose

The judgment did not cite any specific judicial precedent.

The Court treated the dispute as essentially matrimonial in nature, noting that the parties had lived together for only about twenty days and had thereafter remained separate

Their personal presence, identification by counsel, affidavits and compounding application demonstrated that the settlement was voluntary and supported by both sides

The parties had also initiated divorce proceedings by mutual consent, completed the first motion and fixed the second motion for 9 September 2026

In these circumstances, and in view of the State’s submission that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose after settlement, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to prevent continuation of proceedings that no longer served a meaningful criminal-justice purpose

Criminal Case No. 1913 of 2024, Pooja Arya v. Vinod Chandra Arya alias Vikki and Others, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Second, Haldwani, District Nainital, was accordingly quashed in its entirety