Non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings may be quashed after full settlement where conviction is remote.

Respondent No. 2, who was married to petitioner No. 1, lodged a complaint alleging cruelty, ill-treatment and dowry demands. FIR No. 228/2019 was registered at Police Station Nangloi under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC against the petitioners

The parties had lived separately since June 2021 and, through mediation, entered into a settlement on 18 February 2025.

Their marriage was dissolved by mutual-consent decree dated 30 July 2025; the agreed settlement amount of ₹3,00,000 was paid in full, and the other litigation between them was withdrawn.

Respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court, confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and stated that she had no objection to quashing the FIR.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising from it under Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the non-compoundable offences alleged in the FIR, in light of the parties’ settlement of their matrimonial dispute

Whether, considering the nature of the allegations and the completed settlement, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or defeat the ends of justice

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any court; that power is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, proceedings arising from private disputes—including matrimonial disputes—may be quashed where the parties have settled and the likelihood of conviction is remote, subject to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, recognises that non-compoundability does not bar quashing of genuinely settled matrimonial disputes.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, requires the Court to consider whether quashing would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, while excluding heinous or serious offences from settlement-based quashing and assessing the remoteness of conviction.

The Court treated the allegations as arising from a matrimonial relationship and as essentially private and personal, rather than as heinous offences having a serious societal impact.

It noted that the marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent, the full settlement amount had been paid, the other proceedings had been withdrawn, and respondent No. 2 voluntarily supported quashing.

As respondent No. 2 was the principal witness to the alleged cruelty and ill-treatment and no longer supported the prosecution, the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak. The Court therefore concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process.

It allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 228/2019 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, together with all proceedings emanating from it, qua all petitioners; the pending application was also disposed of.