Genuine Matrimonial Settlements Permit Quashing of Non-Compoundable Proceedings Where Public Interest Is Unaffected

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 married on 18 July 2021, separated on 2 January 2023, and had no children.

Respondent No. 2’s complaint alleging dowry-related cruelty, breach of trust and harassment led to FIR No. 414/2024 under Sections 498A/306/34 IPC at PS Palam Village

During the proceedings, the parties entered into a mediation settlement on 1 April 2026, under which petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay respondent No. 2 ₹4,00,000 in full and final settlement of her claims and both parties agreed to cooperate in quashing the FIR.

The parties had obtained a mutual-consent divorce on 30 May 2026; the balance of ₹1,50,000 was paid by demand draft in Court, and respondent No. 2 confirmed the settlement and her wish not to pursue the case.

1. Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash a non-compoundable FIR alleging offences under Sections 498A/306/34 IPC on the basis of a matrimonial settlement.

2. Whether the parties’ settlement, completed payment and mutual-consent divorce justified quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings in this case.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including proceedings concerning non-compoundable offences, where doing so is necessary to secure the ends of justice and the settlement does not adversely affect an overriding public interest.

In Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court may quash proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes after a genuine, voluntary settlement, notwithstanding that the offences are non-compoundable.

The Court found that the matrimonial dispute had been finally resolved through a mediation settlement; the agreed amount had been paid in full, the parties had divorced by mutual consent, and respondent No. 2 voluntarily confirmed that she did not wish to pursue the case.

The State raised no serious objection.

Applying the principles governing quashing after settlement in matrimonial disputes, the Court concluded that quashing was warranted in the circumstances.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.