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. 245/2024, registered at PS Ghazipur under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it

The FIR followed respondent no. 2’s complaint alleging dowry-related mental and physical harassment and that she was made to leave the matrimonial home in February 2023

The parties later executed a settlement providing for resolution of their disputes, return of stridhan, and quashing of the FIR; they had also obtained a mutual-consent divorce

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

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

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

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice; that power may extend to quashing proceedings for non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private, the parties have genuinely and voluntarily settled, and quashing would not adversely affect an overarching public interest.

Relying on Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Court stated that genuine matrimonial settlements may justify quashing criminal proceedings notwithstanding the non-compoundable character of the offences.

The dispute arose from matrimonial discord and had been finally resolved by settlement, including agreement to quash the FIR and confirmation that the stridhan had been returned.

The parties had obtained a mutual-consent divorce, and respondent no. 2 personally confirmed that her agreement was voluntary and that she did not wish to continue the case.

In light of the settlement and the State’s lack of objection, the Court found the matter suitable for exercise of its inherent power.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.