Matrimonial criminal proceedings may be quashed upon genuine settlement where continuation would defeat justice.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 1, his wife, were married in 2005. Following her complaint, an FIR was registered alleging offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; investigation resulted in a charge sheet, and the petitioner faced trial in G.R. Case No. 100 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangtok.

The parties later executed a compromise deed dated 2 April 2026, stating that they wished to resolve their differences in their daughter’s interests and jointly seek quashing of the FIR and prosecution.

Both parties personally confirmed the deed and stated that it was voluntary.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings for alleged offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC in light of the spouses’ compromise.

2. Whether, considering the allegations and the parties’ settlement, continuation of the prosecution would serve the ends of justice.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of court.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court stated that this power is distinct from statutory compounding and may be exercised in appropriate cases involving matrimonial or family disputes that are predominantly private in nature. The Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, whether the parties have fully settled their dispute, the likelihood of conviction, and whether continuing the proceedings would cause injustice or amount to abuse of process.

The Court also referred to Phuchung Tshering Bhutia & Ors. v. State of Sikkim, 2014 Crl. L.J. 3735, which applied these principles to quash a prosecution under Section 498A IPC following a spousal compromise.

The Court considered the matter a matrimonial dispute and took account of the compromise deed, the parties’ personal confirmation that it was voluntary, and their statements that they had been living together for two years and wished to preserve their family’s well-being.

Although the prosecution had alleged repeated misconduct, prompting the Court to examine the matter more closely, the Court’s interactions with the parties and the settlement led it to conclude that quashing would allow them to continue their matrimonial life and serve the ends of justice.

Crl. M.C. No. 06 of 2026 and I.A. No. 01 of 2026 were disposed of accordingly.