High Courts may quash non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings after a genuine settlement.

Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 married on 21 April 2019 and began living separately on 3 September 2020.

Following Respondent No. 2’s complaint, FIR No. 557/2021 was registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and a chargesheet was filed

The parties subsequently entered into a mediation settlement on 8 August 2025, agreeing to divorce by mutual consent, payment of ₹4,50,000 to Respondent No. 2, and cooperation in quashing the FIR

The agreed amount was paid in full, the divorce decree was obtained, and Respondent No. 2 stated that she did not wish to pursue the matter

The petition sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC

1. Whether the High Court may quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences arising from a matrimonial dispute when the parties have settled their differences

2. Whether the settlement and circumstances of this case warranted quashing FIR No. 557/2021 and the consequential proceedings

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and its predecessor, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserve the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, which holds that proceedings in matrimonial disputes may be quashed despite the offences being non-compoundable where the settlement is genuine and amicable, and quashing does not adversely affect an overarching public interest

The Court found that the parties had finally resolved their matrimonial dispute: the settlement amount had been paid, the marriage had been dissolved by mutual-consent divorce, and the parties had withdrawn their other cases

Respondent No. 2 confirmed that she did not wish to pursue the case, and the State did not oppose the petition

Applying the principles in Jitendra Raghuvanshi, the Court treated the dispute as a settled matrimonial matter and concluded that quashing the proceedings was appropriate

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.