Inherent powers under S.528 BNSS (or S.482 CrPC) may be invoked to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences if the dispute is inherently matrimonial, private in nature, and the parties have reached a voluntary, genuine compromise to prevent abuse of the process of law.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

The present Criminal Original Petition has been instituted invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the First Information Report in Crime No.29 of 2025 registered on the file of the 1^st respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 307 and 506(ii) IPC corresponding to Sections 85, 109 and 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in the impugned FIR. The 1^st petitioner is the husband of the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant and petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents.

3. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and have filed a Joint Memorandum of Compromise before this Court. In view of the said subsequent development, this Court is called upon to examine whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any meaningful purpose or whether the same deserves to be terminated in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The case of the prosecution, as could be gathered from the complaint and the First Information Report, is that the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent was solemnised on 12.10.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the petitioners projected that the 1^st petitioner had entered judicial service at a young age and had bright prospects of elevation in future.

5. According to the prosecution, on account of such representations, the family of the 2^nd respondent allegedly provided 220 sovereigns of gold jewels, 4 kilograms of silver articles, diamond ornaments, household utensils and other valuables. It is further alleged that a luxury vehicle worth approximately Rs.45,00,000/- was also provided at the insistence of the petitioners and that the family of the 2^nd respondent incurred marriage expenses to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/-.

6. The further allegation in the complaint is that after marriage, the petitioners allegedly demanded additional dowry and subjected the 2^nd respondent to cruelty, harassment and intimidation. One of the principal allegations in the FIR pertains to an occurrence allegedly dated 25.07.2021, wherein the 2^nd respondent claimed to have noticed certain suspicious circumstances relating to a Freon gas wire connected to an air- conditioner and alleged that the same had been deliberately cut by the petitioners 2 and 3 with an intention to endanger her life. Based upon the said complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered in Crime No.29 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences.

Grounds for quash:

7. Assailing the registration of the FIR, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are false, exaggerated and inherently improbable. The learned counsel further contended that the allegations relating to cruelty under Section 498- A IPC are vague and omnibus in nature and merely disclose matrimonial discord and domestic misunderstandings without satisfying the statutory ingredients constituting cruelty within the meaning of law.

8. Insofar as the allegation under Section 307 IPC is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that no injury whatsoever had been caused to the de-facto complainant and there are absolutely no medical records or scientific materials supporting the allegation of attempt to murder. It was further argued that the allegation relating to the alleged cutting of Freon gas wire is purely speculative and unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint or material evidence.

9. With respect to the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, it was contended that mere verbal exchanges or matrimonial quarrels would not constitute criminal intimidation unless there exists a real, imminent and grave threat