Matrimonial criminal proceedings may be quashed under BNSS Section 528 after complete settlement.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of FIR No. 0555/2021, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it.

The FIR arose from matrimonial disputes between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, who had been living separately since 17 September 2019.

The parties reached a mediated settlement providing for payment of Rs. 4,25,000, divorce by mutual consent and withdrawal of inter se litigation; the marriage was dissolved, and the full settlement amount was paid during the hearing.

Respondent No. 2, identified by the Investigating Officer, confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to pursue the FIR.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the non-compoundable offences alleged under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC in view of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether, in the circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would serve any useful purpose or amount to an abuse of process.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, including in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable offences.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, matrimonial and family disputes of a predominantly private character may be quashed following a genuine settlement, provided the offence is not of a heinous or otherwise public character and the court considers the nature and gravity of the allegations, the likelihood of conviction, and the interests of justice.

The Court treated the case as arising from a matrimonial dispute that the parties had fully resolved.

The marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent, the entire settlement sum had been paid, and Respondent No. 2 affirmed the voluntary settlement and her wish not to pursue the FIR.

Applying the cited principles, the Court concluded that the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak and that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and amount to an abuse of process.

It clarified that the order does not affect the rights of the minor child.