The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that voluntary settlements in matrimonial disputes can justify the quashing of criminal proceedings, even where serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act are alleged. This decision underscores the judiciary’s willingness to prioritize reconciliation over prosecution in personal law matters where both parties consent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, a married couple, were embroiled in a matrimonial dispute that led to the registration of Crime No. 0214/2025 at Police Station Ajni, Nagpur. The case invoked Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alleging harassment, criminal intimidation, and dowry-related offences.
Procedural History
- 2025: Criminal complaint filed by the wife against the husband and his family
- 2026: Applicants filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 174/2026 seeking quashment of proceedings
- 08.12.2005: Parties executed a compromise deed, which remained unchallenged for over two decades
- 04.02.2026: Both parties appeared before the Court, affirmed the compromise, and submitted affidavits
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashment of the criminal proceedings on the ground of a bona fide, long-standing compromise, arguing that continued prosecution would defeat the purpose of marital reconciliation and violate principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether criminal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed upon a voluntary, documented settlement between spouses, even where the offences are non-compoundable.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants relied on the landmark judgment in B.S. Joshi and ors. v. State of Haryana and ors. (2003) 4 SCC 675, which permits quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where parties have settled amicably. They submitted that the compromise deed was executed in good faith, signed by both parties, and corroborated by an affidavit from the wife. They argued that public interest does not demand prosecution where the victim consents to reconciliation and the social harm has been remedied.
For the Respondent/State
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the application. The State acknowledged the authenticity of the compromise and the wife’s affidavit, conceding that there was no public interest in continuing proceedings where the aggrieved party had withdrawn her complaint.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offences and the context of the compromise. It noted that while Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi had held that courts possess inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (now mirrored in Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
"There is no impediment if the parties reached to arrive at a settlement in a matrimonial dispute. The Court has the power to quash proceedings where the compromise is genuine and the parties have resolved their differences."
The Court emphasized that the compromise was not recent or coerced but dated back to 2005, and had been honored for over two decades. The wife’s affidavit confirmed her voluntary consent and lack of objection. The Court held that prosecution in such cases serves no public purpose when the victim has reconciled and the family unit has been restored.
The Court also distinguished this from cases involving violence or exploitation, noting that the allegations here arose from domestic discord, not systemic abuse.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed in matrimonial disputes upon a genuine, long-standing compromise, even where offences are non-compoundable, provided the settlement is voluntary and the victim consents. The case was quashed with no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Overrides Non-Compoundability in Matrimonial Cases
- Practitioners may now confidently move for quashment under Section 482 BNSS where a genuine matrimonial compromise exists, even for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
- Affidavits from the complainant confirming voluntary consent are critical to establish bona fides
- Delay in filing the quashment application is not fatal if the compromise predates the complaint
Courts Will Scrutinize Authenticity, Not Just Formality
- A mere settlement deed is insufficient; courts require corroboration through affidavits and personal appearance
- The Court’s observation that signatures were verified and parties were present underscores the need for judicial scrutiny of compromise authenticity
- Practitioners must demonstrate that the compromise resolved the underlying dispute, not merely avoided prosecution
Public Interest Must Be Reassessed in Personal Law Contexts
- Prosecution in domestic disputes must be weighed against the social cost of fracturing reconciled families
- This judgment reinforces that public interest is not static - it evolves with the parties’ conduct and consent
- Lawyers should frame arguments around restoration of harmony, not just legal technicalities
