High Court Exercises Inherent Power to Quash Non-Compoundable Matrimonial Proceedings Based on Amicable Settlement and Compromise.

The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on June 23, 2023.

Following allegations of dowry-related harassment and cruelty, an FIR was registered on February 2, 2025, under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, took cognizance on September 18, 2025, in Criminal Case No. 40841/2025.

During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties entered into an amicable settlement, filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and agreed upon a permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Consequently, the petitioners moved the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings based on this compromise.

Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable matrimonial offences when the parties have reached an amicable settlement.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the landmark precedents of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuwanshi (2013), which established that matrimonial disputes are personal in nature and, even if non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, may be quashed if a genuine settlement is reached to encourage marital harmony or facilitate the parties' move toward separate lives.

The Court also noted the principle that quashing is appropriate when the possibility of conviction is remote due to compromise, making continued prosecution oppressive.

The Court observed that the dispute between the parties was "purely matrimonial in nature" and had been resolved voluntarily through mediation.

Applying the ratio from Jitendra Raghuvanshi, the Bench reasoned that it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements in matrimonial matters.

The Court found that since the parties had already initiated divorce by mutual consent and reached a financial settlement, the continuation of the criminal trial for the offence under Section 498-A would be an "exercise in futility" and would adversely impact the reconciliation process.

The Bench concluded that because the wrong was essentially private and personal, and the parties had resolved their entire dispute, the ends of justice would be better served by terminating the proceedings rather than allowing a bleak prosecution to continue.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 09/2025 dated February 2, 2025, and the resulting proceedings in Criminal Case No. 40841/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.

The quashment is subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement entered into by the parties.