Section 528 BNSS permits quashing matrimonial FIRs after amicable settlement of private disputes.

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 married on 12 December 2009 and had two children.

After they began living separately in May 2013, respondent No. 2’s complaint led to registration of FIR No. 774/2015 at P.S. Dabri under Sections 498A, 406, 354 and 34 IPC, alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, retention of stridhan and molestation by the petitioner’s brother-in-law.

The Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and against the brother-in-law under Section 354 IPC; the Revisional Court later discharged the brother-in-law from the Section 354 charge.

The parties subsequently entered into a mediated settlement, obtained a mutual-consent divorce, and the petitioner paid the agreed settlement amount of ₹11,70,000.

Respondent No. 2 confirmed the settlement and stated that she had no objection to quashing the FIR.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner in light of the parties’ settlement.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve a useful purpose where the dispute was private in nature and the complainant no longer wished to pursue the charges.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied that power to quash the proceedings, reasoning that the dispute was primarily private, the parties had amicably settled it, and the complainant did not wish to press the charges.

The Court noted that the parties had settled their disputes through mediation, completed their mutual-consent divorce, and fulfilled the financial terms of the settlement.

Respondent No. 2 personally confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she had received the full amount, and expressly consented to quashing.

Given the private nature of the dispute and the complainant’s position, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and that quashing would secure the ends of justice.

It directed that the parties’ original affidavits be submitted to the Trial Court and the concerned SHO/IO within four weeks.

All pending applications were also disposed of.