High Courts may quash non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings after a voluntary, complete settlement.

Respondent no. 2, who married petitioner no. 1 in 2014, lodged an FIR under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC against him and his relatives following matrimonial differences.

The parties had lived separately since 25 August 2019; the charge sheet additionally invoked Sections 323 and 506 IPC.

The parties later settled their disputes, petitioner no. 1 paid the agreed settlement sum of ₹3,00,000, and their marriage was dissolved by mutual-consent divorce.

Respondent no. 2 affirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing the proceedings.

The father-in-law, who was not a petitioner, had died and proceedings against him had abated.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings arising from matrimonial offences, including a non-compoundable offence, on the basis of a settlement between the parties

2. Whether the settlement and surrounding circumstances warranted quashing the FIR and proceedings against the petitioners

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from, and not confined by, the statutory power to compound offences under Section 359 BNSS (formerly Section 320 CrPC).

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, proceedings involving predominantly private or civil disputes, including matrimonial disputes, may be quashed after settlement where continuation would be futile and the ends of justice so require; this power is to be exercised cautiously and is generally inappropriate for heinous offences or offences with serious societal impact.

Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, reiterates that a genuine, voluntary settlement of a matrimonial dispute may justify quashing even where the offences are non-compoundable.

The Court treated the case as arising from a matrimonial relationship and as essentially private in nature, rather than involving a heinous offence or one with serious societal impact.

The marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent, the entire settlement amount had been paid, and respondent no. 2—present before the Court—confirmed the voluntary settlement and filed a no-objection affidavit.

Given the parties’ separation and resolution of their other disputes, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

It quashed FIR No. 580/2022 and all proceedings arising from it against the petitioners, allowed the petition, and disposed of the pending application.