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

Respondent no. 2, formerly married to petitioner no. 1, lodged a complaint that led to registration of FIR No. 0350/2019 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), at Police Station Mahendra Park, Delhi. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A/34 IPC.

During the proceedings, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 entered into a settlement agreement on 6 November 2024 for ₹4,10,000. The final instalment of ₹1,10,000 was tendered in court by demand draft; respondent no. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to pursue the matter. Their marriage had also been dissolved by a decree dated 14 October 2025.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

1. Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial offences on the basis of the parties’ settlement, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuing the proceedings would serve the interests of justice.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice; that power is distinct from the statutory compounding mechanism under Section 320 CrPC.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court recognised that proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed where a genuine settlement makes conviction remote and continuation would be unjust.

In Jitender Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court held that courts may quash proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes where the parties have amicably and voluntarily settled, while exercising the inherent power sparingly and according to the facts of each case.

The Court found that the dispute arose from the parties’ marriage, which had been dissolved, and that the parties had settled their disputes. Respondent no. 2 personally confirmed the settlement was made freely, without pressure or coercion, and accepted the final payment due under it.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Jitender Raghuvanshi, the Court concluded that the likelihood of conviction was remote and that continuing the proceedings would be an empty formality, unnecessarily burdening the justice system.

The parties were to remain bound by the settlement deed, and the petition and pending application were disposed of.