Matrimonial-dispute criminal proceedings may be quashed on settlement where conviction is remote.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were formerly married.

Following marital disputes, respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 315/2022 under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC against the petitioners; a charge-sheet was subsequently filed and remained pending before the Sub-Judge, Surankote

The parties later settled their disputes through mediation, agreed to dissolve the marriage and live separately, and recorded an arrangement for permanent alimony.

Respondent No. 2 stated before the Registrar Judicial that she had no objection to quashing the FIR and charge-sheet.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR and charge-sheet could be quashed on the basis of the parties’ amicable settlement.

Whether, in the circumstances, continuing the prosecution would serve a useful purpose or instead cause injustice and amount to an abuse of process.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked as the basis for the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court applied the principles that serious and heinous offences, or offences with a substantial societal impact, ordinarily should not be quashed merely on compromise; by contrast, proceedings arising predominantly from matrimonial or family disputes may be quashed where the parties have resolved their disputes.

The Court must also consider whether the prospects of conviction are remote and whether continuation would cause oppression, prejudice or injustice.

The Court treated the allegations as arising from matrimonial discord and noted that the parties had settled their disputes, respondent No. 2 had consented to quashing, and the State raised no serious objection.

It found that the alleged offences were not heinous in nature and that, in light of the settlement, the prospects of conviction were bleak.

On those facts, it concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would cause injustice.

It allowed the petition and quashed Charge-sheet No. 450/2022, arising from FIR No. 315/2022 under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.