Quashing of Non-Compoundable Matrimonial Offences Permitted Under Section 528 BNSS Following Amicable Settlement Between Parties.

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking the quashing of FIR No. 118/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Gwalior.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 85, 296, 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties filed applications (I.A. Nos. 185/2026 and 186/2026) stating that their matrimonial/family dispute had been resolved via an amicable settlement.

The factum of this voluntary compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar of the Court on 19.01.2026.

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

Whether the continuation of prosecution in a matrimonial dispute that has been amicably resolved would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C.], which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which distinguished between "compounding" under Section 320 and "quashing" under inherent powers, permitting the latter for non-compoundable offences of a personal or matrimonial nature.

It further applied principles from State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, which established that while heinous crimes (murder/rape) cannot be quashed, disputes with a "predominantly civil character" or arising from "matrimonial relationships" are fit for quashing upon settlement.

Additional reliance was placed on K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana.

Additional reliance was placed on Daxaben v. State of Gujarat.

The Court observed that the dispute was essentially private and matrimonial in nature, lacking any serious impact on society at large.

Following the verification report of the Principal Registrar, the Court was satisfied that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion.

Applying the precedents of Gian Singh and Laxmi Narayan, the Court reasoned that since the parties no longer intended to pursue the matter, the possibility of conviction was remote.

Consequently, continuing the criminal trial would be a "futile exercise" and a waste of judicial time.

The Court determined that quashing the FIR was necessary to prevent the abuse of the legal process and to record the resolution of the matrimonial discord.

The MCRC was allowed, and the Court directed the quashment of FIR No. 118/2025 (Mahila Thana, Gwalior) regarding offences under Sections 85, 296, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry Act, along with all consequential proceedings.

No order was made as to costs.