High Court Exercises Inherent Power to Quash Non-Compoundable Matrimonial Offences Based on Amicable Settlement and Divorce

The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were married on July 14, 2002, and have one child.

Following matrimonial disputes and separation, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging cruelty, leading to the registration of FIR No. 86/2020 at PS Saket under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC.

On February 20, 2025, the parties settled all matrimonial disputes before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, and subsequently obtained a decree of divorce.

The Petitioner filed the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR based on this settlement.

Both parties appeared in person, and Respondent No. 2 expressed her desire not to pursue the proceedings.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute that has been settled amicably.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [erstwhile Section 482 of the CrPC], which preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on *Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.* (2014), which establishes that matrimonial or family disputes of a predominantly civil character should be quashed when resolved by parties.

It further cited *Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.* (2017), which provides guidelines for quashing non-compoundable offences, distinguishing private disputes from heinous crimes against society.

The Court observed that while Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the High Court has broad powers under the BNSS to quash proceedings to prevent oppression when settlement is reached.

Applying the principles from *Narinder Singh*, the Court found that the dispute was matrimonial and private in nature, rather than a heinous crime affecting public order.

Since the parties had already obtained a divorce and Respondent No. 2 stated she had no remaining grievances, the Court reasoned that the possibility of conviction was "remote and bleak".

Consequently, continuing the criminal trial would serve no useful purpose and would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

The Court quashed FIR No. 86/2020 and all consequential proceedings.

It clarified that the order does not affect the legal rights or custody of the minor child.

The petition was allowed.