Non-compoundable matrimonial offence proceedings may be quashed upon a voluntary settlement between the parties.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 0580/2024, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it, on the basis of a settlement.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had married on 7 March 2024, separated on 6 May 2024, and had no children.

Respondent No. 2’s complaint alleged harassment and dowry demands by the petitioners.

The parties later settled their disputes through an agreement dated 8 October 2025, including a full and final settlement of ₹6 lakh and their agreement to cooperate in quashing the FIR.

Respondent No. 2 confirmed the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to pursue the matter; the agreed amount was paid in full, and the parties’ marriage had been dissolved by mutual-consent divorce.

1. Whether the High Court should quash the FIR under its inherent jurisdiction where the parties have voluntarily settled a matrimonial dispute involving non-compoundable offences.

2. Whether the settlement and surrounding circumstances in this case warranted quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court stated that criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences may be quashed where the parties have reached a genuine, voluntary settlement, particularly in matrimonial disputes, and quashing would not adversely affect an overriding public interest.

Relying on Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Court noted that the inherent power may be exercised to quash matrimonial proceedings following an amicable settlement, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offences.

The Court found that the parties had finally settled their matrimonial disputes, that respondent No. 2 had entered the settlement voluntarily and did not wish to continue the case, and that the agreed settlement amount had been paid.

The marriage had also been dissolved by mutual consent.

With the State raising no objection and no impediment identified to granting relief, the Court held that quashing was appropriate in the circumstances.

The petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.