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

The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnised on 18 January 2020 but was never consummated; no child was born of the marriage.

Following respondent no. 2’s complaint, FIR No. 96/2023 was registered at PS Kirti Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on 22 April 2023, and a chargesheet was filed on 25 January 2024.

The parties subsequently entered into an MoU dated 23 December 2025, agreeing to divorce by mutual consent and to cooperate in seeking quashing of the FIR. Petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay respondent no. 2 ₹22 lakh, and the jewellery was also to be returned.

The divorce was granted on 22 May 2026; the settlement sum was paid and the jewellery returned. Respondent no. 2 confirmed before the Court that she had received both and did not wish to pursue the matter.

The State raised no objection to quashing.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial offences after the parties had settled their dispute.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the settlement warranted quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

As stated in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, even where offences are non-compoundable, the High Court may quash proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes when the parties have amicably and voluntarily settled their differences; Section 320 CrPC is not a bar to that exercise of power in such circumstances.

The Court also noted that quashing is appropriate where no overriding public interest would be adversely affected.

The Court found that the matrimonial dispute had been fully settled: the parties had obtained a divorce, the agreed ₹22 lakh had been paid, and the jewellery had been returned.

Respondent no. 2 personally confirmed receipt of the settlement and her wish not to pursue the case, while the State did not oppose the petition.

Applying the principles in Jitendra Raghuvanshi, the Court concluded that the settled matrimonial dispute justified exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the non-compoundable offences.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.