High Courts may quash non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings after voluntary settlement where conviction is unlikely.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of FIR No. 922/2024, registered under Sections 85, 316 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, together with consequential proceedings

The FIR followed a complaint by respondent no. 2, who was married to petitioner no. 1; the parties had been living separately, and a chargesheet was filed

During the proceedings, the parties executed a settlement MoU, under which petitioner no. 1 paid respondent no. 2 ₹11,00,000; their divorce was also finalised

Respondent no. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, that she had received the amount, and that she did not wish to pursue the matter

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute settled between the parties, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the alleged offences

2. Whether, in the circumstances, continuing the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose or instead amount to an abuse of process

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the court

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court noted that criminal proceedings may be quashed following a compromise where the dispute is private in nature and the likelihood of conviction has become remote and bleak

It also relied on Jitender Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, for the principles that courts should encourage genuine, voluntary settlements of matrimonial disputes and may quash even non-compoundable proceedings where the facts warrant it to secure the ends of justice; the power must be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases

The Court treated the dispute as arising from the parties’ marriage, which had since been dissolved, and noted that the parties had settled their claims under the MoU, including payment of ₹11,00,000 to respondent no. 2

Respondent no. 2 confirmed the settlement was voluntary and stated that she had no objection to quashing; the State also had no serious objection

In light of the settlement and the matrimonial nature of the dispute, the Court found little likelihood of conviction and considered that continuing the proceedings would be an empty formality that would unnecessarily consume judicial and public resources

The parties were directed to remain bound by the terms of the MoU, and the petition and pending application were disposed of