High Court Exercises Inherent Powers to Quash Non-Compoundable Matrimonial Offenses Following Amicable Settlement and Divorce.

The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 24.05.2010, resulting in one child.

Due to misunderstandings, the parties separated, leading Respondent No. 2 to file a complaint alleging cruelty, which culminated in FIR No. 408/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC at PS Vivek Vihar.

Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed.

On 04.06.2025, the parties reached an amicable settlement before the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdra, agreeing to a total sum of ₹46,00,000/- for Respondent No. 2.

Having obtained a decree of divorce and settled all financial dues, the Petitioners moved the High Court to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes if the parties have reached a settlement.

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 or secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, which established that while the power to quash non-compoundable offences should be used sparingly, cases of a predominant civil or matrimonial character should be quashed upon settlement.

It further cited Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641, affirming that the High Court must evaluate if the ends of justice justify quashing, especially when the possibility of conviction is remote due to a compromise.

The Court observed that although Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the dispute between the parties was essentially matrimonial in nature.

The parties appeared in person, were identified by the Investigating Officer, and Respondent No. 2 confirmed that she had settled all grievances and received the full settlement amount of ₹46,00,000/-.

Applying the principles from Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court reasoned that since the parties have already obtained a divorce and resolved their disputes, continuing criminal proceedings would be futile and would subject the accused to "oppression and prejudice".

The Court noted that the possibility of conviction is now "remote and bleak" and quashing is necessary to "prevent abuse of the process of Court".

The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 408/2016 and all consequential proceedings.

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