High Court Exercises Inherent Power to Quash Non-Compoundable Matrimonial Offences Following Amicable Settlement and Monetary Compensation.

The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 (solemnized on 09.03.2019) resulted in matrimonial discord and separate living

Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, and outraging of modesty

Consequently, FIR No. 311/2022 was registered at PS Ghazipur under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC

The chargesheet included Sections 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act againstvarious petitioners, with Petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 specifically charged under Section 354 IPC

On 05.12.2025, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement at the Family Court, Karkardooma, involving a total payment of ₹7,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 and a pronouncement of divorce under Muslim law

The petitioners moved the High Court to quash the FIR based on this settlement.

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings (Sections 498A/354 IPC; 3/4 DP Act) on the grounds of a private settlement between parties

Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute that has been amicably resolved constitutes an abuse of the process of the court

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), which preserves the High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice

It relied on the principles established in *Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.* (2014), which mandates quashing cases of "predominantly civil character" arising from matrimonial relationships when parties resolve disputes

and *Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.* (2017), which authorizes the quashing of non-compoundable offences if the possibility of conviction is remote and justice warrants the exercise of inherent power

The Court observed that although the charges included non-compoundable offences such as outraging modesty (Section 354 IPC) and dowry demands, the allegations essentially emerged from a matrimonial conflict

Applying the *Narinder Singh* and *Parbatbhai Aahir* precedents, the Court noted that since the complainant (Respondent No. 2) no longer wished to pursue the case and had received the full settlement amount, the possibility of conviction was "remote and bleak"

The Court reasoned that keeping the dispute alive would only cause "ill will to fester" and result in "oppression and prejudice" against the petitioners

Consequently, the Court found that quashing the FIR was necessary to prevent the abuse of the judicial process, as the private settlement effectively resolved the underlying grievances.

The Court quashed FIR No. 311/2022 and all consequential proceedings

It clarified that the order does not affect the legal rights of the minor child, nor did the Court adjudicate on the legality of the settlement regarding child custody

The petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of