High Court May Quash Non-Compoundable Offences Arising From Matrimonial Disputes to Prevent Abuse of Process

The petitioners sought the quashing of FIR No. 307/2023 registered at PS Burari under Sections 354/323/509/506/427/34 of the IPC.

The complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 following a physical altercation on November 11, 2022, arising from matrimonial disputes between the complainant’s brother-in-law (Dayanand) and the petitioners' relative (Nisha Rani).

Chargesheets were filed, including Section 354(B) IPC against Petitioners 1 and 3.

Subsequently, the parties settled all disputes via a Memorandum of Understanding dated September 8, 2025, during which the complainant stated that the allegations were "exaggerated" due to matrimonial acrimony.

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences, such as Section 354(B) IPC, on the basis of a private settlement.

Whether the continuance of the current proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court given the matrimonial and familial nature of the dispute.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which preserves the inherent powers formerly under Section 482 of the CrPC.

It relied on the principles established in *Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab* (2014), which allows quashing of non-compoundable offences to secure the ends of justice, especially in matrimonial or family disputes.

It further cited *Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat* (2017), affirming that while serious offences against society cannot be quashed, cases with a predominant civil or matrimonial flavor may be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote and the settlement is voluntary.

The Court observed that although Section 354(B) IPC is non-compoundable, the dispute originated from matrimonial acrimony between two families.

The complainant appeared in person, stating she no longer wished to pursue the case and admitted the complaints were exaggerated.

The Court reasoned that since the primary parties (Dayanand and Nisha) had filed for annulment and resolved to end all litigations, the possibility of conviction was "remote and bleak".

Following the guidelines in *Narinder Singh*, the Court determined that the dispute was private in nature rather than a heinous crime against society, and forcing a trial would only cause "ill will to fester" and cause "extreme injustice" to the petitioners.

The Court allowed the petition and ordered that FIR No. 307/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.

The parties were directed to cooperate in ending other pending proceedings as per their settlement.