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

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 975/2015, registered at Police Station Vikaspuri under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and the consequential proceedings, on the basis of a settlement.

Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 married in 2015, separated that year, and had no children.

An earlier settlement failed; they later entered into a fresh settlement on 8 April 2026, under which they agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and cooperate in quashing the FIR.

Their divorce had taken place on 14 July 2026, and petitioner no. 1 handed respondent no. 2 a draft for the outstanding settlement amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in court.

Respondent no. 2 confirmed that she did not wish to pursue the matter and had no objection to quashing.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings in view of the parties’ settlement of their matrimonial disputes.

2. Whether the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 498A IPC bars quashing of the proceedings following that settlement.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

Although Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, that status does not prevent the High Court from quashing proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute where the parties have reached a genuine, amicable settlement and quashing would not adversely affect an overriding public interest.

In Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court held that the High Court may quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes when the settlement is genuine and voluntary, notwithstanding Section 320 CrPC.

The Court found that the parties had finally settled their disputes through the agreement dated 8 April 2026, had obtained a divorce, and had fulfilled the outstanding payment due at the hearing.

Respondent no. 2 appeared in court, was identified, and personally confirmed that she did not wish to pursue the proceedings.

Applying the principle in Jitendra Raghuvanshi, the Court concluded that the matrimonial dispute had been amicably resolved and that the non-compoundable character of Section 498A IPC did not preclude quashing in these circumstances.

The petition was disposed of, and the pending application was also disposed of.