High Courts may quash non-compoundable matrimonial offences after genuine settlement where conviction is unlikely.

The petitioners—husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent no. 2—sought quashing of FIR No. 0395/2019, registered at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC.

The matrimonial relationship between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 had deteriorated, and the parties began living separately in June 2019, following which respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR on 29 November 2019.

Related maintenance, execution and domestic-violence proceedings were also instituted, but the parties subsequently entered into a Mediation Settlement dated 19 September 2023 before the Delhi Mediation Centre.

The parties stated that they had amicably resolved all disputes and had resumed cohabitation with their three daughters.

The chargesheet arising from the FIR was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Respondent no. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, made without coercion or undue pressure, and that she had no objection to quashing the FIR against all accused.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, could quash proceedings arising from non-compoundable offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC on the basis of an amicable matrimonial settlement?

Whether, in view of the settlement, resumed cohabitation and the complainant’s consent, continuation of the FIR and pending criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose or amount to an abuse of process?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that non-compoundable criminal proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private or matrimonial in nature, the parties have genuinely settled their differences, and continuation of the proceedings would be futile, provided that no serious public interest is adversely affected.

Under Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, such power must be exercised sparingly and with caution; matrimonial and family disputes may ordinarily be quashed after a complete settlement where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression, prejudice or injustice.

The Court found that the proceedings arose from a matrimonial dispute and did not involve offences of a heinous nature or an overriding public interest warranting continuation despite settlement.

The Mediation Settlement was confirmed to be voluntary, and respondent no. 2 expressly consented to quashing the FIR against all accused.

The parties had resumed living together peacefully with their children, and respondent no. 2 stated that she had been living happily with petitioner no. 1 for approximately three years.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the likelihood of conviction was remote and that continuation of the prosecution would be an empty formality, burden the justice system and consume public resources.

FIR No. 0395/2019, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi, and the connected proceedings in State v. Khalifa Javed & Ors., Case No. 3890/2022, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, were quashed against all accused.

The parties were directed to remain bound by the terms of the Mediation Settlement dated 19 September 2023, and the petition was disposed of.