Inherent powers permit quashing non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings after a voluntary, complete settlement.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 0412/2024, registered at Police Station Alipur under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, arising from a matrimonial dispute between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2.

The parties had been living separately since January 2023 and settled their disputes on 17 August 2024.

Under the settlement, petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay respondent no. 2 ₹2,45,000 and return her articles; the parties stated that the entire amount had been paid and the articles returned.

Respondent no. 2 appeared in Court, confirmed the voluntary settlement and receipt of the amount, and stated that she did not wish to pursue the FIR. No charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the High Court could quash a non-compoundable FIR alleging matrimonial offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, in light of the parties’ settlement and respondent no. 2’s consent.

Whether, on the facts, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve the ends of justice or instead be futile.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC.

Although Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences and is not limited by it; Section 406 IPC is compoundable with the Court’s permission.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the High Court may quash non-compoundable proceedings arising from private matrimonial or family disputes where the parties have genuinely settled, the offences are not of a heinous or serious nature, and quashing would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

The FIR arose from a matrimonial dispute and alleged offences that the Court found did not fall within the category of heinous or serious offences for which settlement would not justify quashing.

The parties had settled all disputes; the settlement obligations were performed, respondent no. 2 confirmed her consent and filed an affidavit of no objection, and the marriage had been dissolved by mutual-consent decree.

In the absence of a charge-sheet and given respondent no. 2’s position, the Court considered the possibility of conviction remote and continuation of the proceedings futile.

It therefore found no impediment to quashing the FIR under the principles in the cited Supreme Court decisions.

It quashed FIR No. 0412/2024 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating from it, qua all petitioners, and disposed of the petition and pending applications.