The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings and set aside convictions in matrimonial disputes involving non-compoundable, non-heinous offences if the parties have reached a voluntary settlement and the dispute is private in nature.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/Respondent No.1.

2. By filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), the Petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and kindly set aside/quash the F.I.R./crime no. 05/2015 registered on dated 07.06.2015 at police station Mahila Thana, Durg, Durg (C.G.), the charge sheet filed against the petitioners under section 498A, 34 of I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Annexure-P/1), judgment of conviction dated 30.12.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Durg in criminal case No. 6121 of 2015 (Annexure-P/2), order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Court (part of Annexure-P/6) and the proceedings of appeal bearing CRA No. 24 of 2024 pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge, District Durg (C.G.) against the petitioners, in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the present case emanates purely from a matrimonial discord between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2, which, with the passage of time and intervention of elders and mediators, has now been amicably and voluntarily resolved between the parties. It is contended that the dispute does not involve any element of public interest or grave societal impact, but is essentially personal in nature, arising out of strained marital relations. Drawing attention to the mediation report dated 07.01.2026, it is urged that the parties have consciously decided to bury their differences and move on in life, and therefore, continuance of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the settlement arrived at between the parties is bona fide, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence. The same is evident not only from the mediation report but also from the statements recorded before the learned Appellate Court, wherein both parties unequivocally expressed their willingness to resolve all disputes and put an end to the litigation. It is emphasized that pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioners have already taken substantial steps by preparing demand drafts aggregating to Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of Respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement, thereby demonstrating their bona fides and commitment to honour the terms of compromise.

5. It is further argued that although the offences under Section 4 98A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are technically non-compoundable, it is now well settled that this Hon’ble Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings even in such cases where the dispute is essentially private and the parties have settled the matter amicably.

6. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], wherein it has been categorically held that in matrimonial disputes, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice when the parties have resolved their differences. It is thus submitted that the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

7. Learned counsel also contends that the learned Appellate Court has committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the application under Section 359 of BNSS in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, without properly appreciating the settlement arrived at between the parties and the surrounding circumstances. It is submitted that the impugned order reflects complete non-application of mind, as the learned Appellate Court failed to consider that the very sub