High Courts may quash non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings following a voluntary settlement between the parties.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of FIR No. 577/2016 and consequential proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. The judgment describes the FIR as registered under Sections 489A/406/34 IPC, while recording that the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 married in 2014, separated, and have one daughter. Their marriage was dissolved by decree dated 6 May 2025.

Under a settlement agreement dated 17 May 2024, petitioner no. 1 paid respondent no. 2 ₹5,00,000; respondent no. 2 confirmed the settlement was voluntary and had no objection to quashing the proceedings.

The State raised no serious objection, while asking that the minor daughter’s rights be preserved.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings concerning a matrimonial dispute that the parties had amicably settled.

Whether quashing should affect the rights of the parties’ minor daughter, who is in respondent no. 2’s custody.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Jitender Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the High Court may quash even non-compoundable offences arising from a private matrimonial dispute when the settlement is genuine and voluntary and the continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Section 320 CrPC does not bar the exercise of that inherent power; the Court must assess the circumstances of each case.

The Court found that the dispute arose from the parties’ marriage, which had since been dissolved, and that they had settled their disputes through a written agreement.

Respondent no. 2 personally confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, that she had received the agreed ₹5,00,000, and that she did not wish to pursue the case.

In light of the settlement and the nature of the dispute, the Court considered conviction unlikely and continuation of the proceedings an empty formality that would unnecessarily burden the justice system.

It separately addressed the State’s concern by keeping the minor daughter’s rights open.

The parties remain bound by the settlement agreement dated 17 May 2024, but the minor daughter’s rights remain open.