Quashment of Matrimonial Prosecution Under Section 528 BNSS Following Voluntary Amicable Settlement Between Parties

The marriage between Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 06.03.2020.

Following matrimonial disputes, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint on 03.05.2024, leading to the registration of Crime No. 31/2024 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Sagar, under Sections 498-A, 506, and 34 of the IPC.

During a previous quashment petition (M.Cr.C. No. 31230/2024), the parties entered an amicable settlement, but the court disposed of that petition on 12.05.2026 without considering the compromise.

The applicants filed the present petition to recall the earlier order and quash the proceedings based on the verified settlement.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to recall/modify an earlier order and quash criminal proceedings based on a post-disposal verification of a settlement.

2. Whether criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes should be quashed when the parties have reached a voluntary settlement and the possibility of conviction is remote.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

In non-compoundable offences of a personal or matrimonial nature (like Section 498-A IPC), the High Court may quash proceedings if the dispute is resolved amicably, as the social interest in prosecution is outweighed by the benefit of marital harmony or peaceful separation.

The Court analyzed the report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial-II), which confirmed that the parties appeared in person and voluntarily entered into the compromise without coercion.

The Court observed that the dispute was "purely matrimonial in nature" and did not affect society at large.

The Court reasoned that since the parties had resolved all differences and Respondent No. 2 did not wish to prosecute, the "possibility of conviction has become remote".

Consequently, continuing the criminal trial would be a "futile" exercise and an "abuse of the process of law," as the primary objective of the law in such private disputes is to secure the ends of justice rather than insist on a trial that has no prospect of success.

The Court allowed the petition and recalled/modified the order dated 12.05.2026 to accept the compromise; and quashed FIR Crime No. 31/2024 (P.S. Mahila Thana, Sagar), the related charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar.