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

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 568/2022, registered under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 468 and 34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it. A chargesheet had been filed.

The FIR followed respondent no. 2’s allegations of dowry-related harassment and retention of her jewellery and other belongings by her husband and his parents.

The parties entered into a settlement under which the petitioners agreed to pay respondent no. 2 ₹23,00,000 as full and final settlement; the final instalment of ₹10,00,000 was paid by demand draft at the hearing. Respondent no. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to pursue the matter. The parties’ marriage had also been dissolved by mutual-consent divorce.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings for non-compoundable offences arising from a matrimonial dispute settled by the parties

Whether the settlement was voluntary and sufficiently resolved the parties’ dispute to warrant quashing

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

Under Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the High Court may quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes where the parties have amicably and voluntarily settled, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 CrPC, provided no overriding public interest is adversely affected.

The Court found that the dispute arose from the parties’ matrimonial relationship and that they had entered into a full and final settlement. Respondent no. 2 confirmed in Court that the settlement was made of her own free will, that she had received the agreed amount, and that she did not wish to continue the proceedings.

The marriage had also been dissolved by mutual consent.

Applying the principles in Jitendra Raghuvanshi, the Court concluded that the settlement justified quashing the proceedings and that no public-interest concern precluded that relief.

The pending application was also disposed of.