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

Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 (the complainant) were married on November 25, 2013

Due to matrimonial discord, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging cruelty, leading to the registration of FIR No. 1225/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC at PS Bhajan Pura

During proceedings, two accused persons (the father-in-law and jethani) passed away

On November 25, 2023, the parties reached an amicable settlement before the Family Court Counselor, Shahdara

They subsequently obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent

Out of a total settlement of ₹8,00,000, the final installment of ₹2,00,000 was paid to Respondent No. 2 in court

Consequently, the Petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute after a settlement has been reached

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

It relied on the principles established in *Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.* (2014), which held that criminal cases of a predominantly civil or matrimonial character should be quashed when resolved by the parties

It further cited *Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.* (2017), which clarified that while heinous crimes (murder, rape) cannot be quashed via settlement, the High Court may quash non-compoundable offences if the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression

The Court observed that while Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the High Court possesses the discretion to quash such proceedings to facilitate the "ends of justice"

In the present case, the Court noted that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and the parties had already secured a divorce and settled all financial claims

Respondent No. 2 appeared in person and stated she did not wish to pursue the FIR

Applying the guidelines from *Narinder Singh*, the Court reasoned that the dispute was private in nature and lacked a serious impact on society

It concluded that because the parties had resolved their differences and the complainant no longer supported the prosecution, the possibility of conviction was "remote and bleak," and continued litigation would constitute an abuse of the judicial process

The Court allowed the petition and ordered the quashing of FIR No. 1225/2015 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly