High Court May Quash Non-Compoundable Matrimonial and Personal Offences Based on Voluntary Amicable Settlement

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.] seeking the quashment of FIR Crime No. 52/2015 registered at Police Station Madhoganj, Gwalior.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 384, 498-A, 325, 323, and 34 of the IPC.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties filed applications (I.A. Nos. 24062/2025 and 24063/2025) stating they had reached a voluntary compromise.

The Principal Registrar of the High Court verified the factum of compromise and submitted a report confirming the settlement was entered into without threat or coercion.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties.

Whether the continuation of prosecution for matrimonial and personal disputes after a compromise would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS (inherent powers of the High Court).

It relied on the landmark precedent of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which established that the High Court may quash non-compoundable offences if they are predominantly civil or matrimonial in nature and the parties have settled.

This was bolstered by K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana (2024), affirming that matrimonial disputes relating to dowry satisfy the criteria for quashing even if non-compoundable.

Additionally, the court cited State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) to clarify that while serious/heinous crimes (e.g., murder, rape) should not be quashed, those arising from commercial or family disputes may be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

The Court examined the nature of the allegations—primarily matrimonial and personal disputes under Section 498-A and related IPC sections—and determined they were private in nature rather than crimes against society.

The Court noted that the Principal Registrar had verified the compromise as voluntary.

Applying the principles from Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court reasoned that since the parties no longer intended to pursue the matter, the possibility of conviction was remote.

Consequently, continuing the prosecution would be a "futile exercise" and a "wasteful exercise by the courts," as it would not serve the ends of justice but rather abuse the legal process.

The Court allowed the petition and ordered the quashment of FIR Crime No. 52/2015 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

No order was made as to costs.