Non-compoundable matrimonial offence proceedings may be quashed on voluntary compromise at the pre-trial stage.

The applicants sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 37/2026 registered at Police Station Khargone (Mahila Police Thana) for offences under Sections 85, 351(3) and 35(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the consequential proceedings.

The FIR arose from a matrimonial dispute: the applicant husband and respondent wife had married in 2006 and had three children; the wife alleged cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law.

The applicants asserted that the parties had voluntarily compromised, as recorded in the verification report, and that the case remained at the pre-trial stage, with no chargesheet filed. The State opposed the petition, while the objector expressed no objection.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings for a non-compoundable offence on the basis of a compromise in a matrimonial dispute.

2. Whether the verified compromise, the pre-trial stage of the case, and the prospect of restoring harmony between the parties warranted quashing in this case.

Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Ramavtar v. State of M.P., and other cited authorities, the Court stated that proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private—particularly one arising from a matrimonial or family relationship—and the parties have settled it; such power should not ordinarily be exercised for heinous or serious offences with a substantial societal impact.

The Court also relied on Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, noting that the nature and stage of the proceedings, the available material, the likelihood of conviction, and whether settlement may restore harmony are relevant considerations.

The Court treated the dispute as arising from a matrimonial relationship and noted that the compromise had been verified as voluntary and free from threat, coercion, or undue influence.

It considered that the proceedings were at an early, pre-trial stage, the parties had resumed good relations, and the likelihood of conviction was remote in light of the settlement. Applying the principles governing quashing of non-compoundable offences, the Court concluded that continuing the case risked disrupting the parties’ relationship and that quashing would serve the interests of justice.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.