High Courts may quash non-compoundable matrimonial offences under inherent powers after a genuine settlement.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it, including a chargesheet that also invoked Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The FIR arose from matrimonial disputes between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2; they had lived separately since 1 January 2023.

The parties entered into a mediated settlement under which petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay respondent no. 2 ₹11,10,000 in full and final settlement. Their marriage was subsequently dissolved by mutual-consent divorce.

Respondent no. 2 confirmed receipt of ₹7,00,000 and accepted a demand draft for the balance ₹4,10,000 at the hearing. She stated that the settlement was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing.

1. Whether the High Court could quash non-compoundable offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in light of the parties’ settlement of their matrimonial disputes.

2. Whether, in the circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process or whether quashing would secure the ends of justice.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice; it corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Although offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable—the latter by virtue of Section 8(2) of that Act—the High Court may quash proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes where the parties have genuinely settled and quashing is necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure justice. The Court relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.

The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the terms and implementation of the settlement, and the complainant’s voluntary request for closure.

The marriage had ended by mutual-consent divorce, the agreed settlement amount had been paid or tendered, and respondent no. 2 confirmed receipt of the balance demand draft and raised no objection to quashing. In those circumstances, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would result in protracted litigation without serving a useful purpose and applied the cited settlement-based quashing principles.

The pending application was also disposed of.