The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that courts possess inherent power to quash criminal proceedings when parties to a marital dispute reach a genuine, voluntary settlement, even in cases involving serious allegations. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in preventing protracted litigation where the original grievance has been resolved, aligning with constitutional values of justice, equity, and efficiency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, including Akhil Tiwari, a police constable, and his parents, were named in an FIR registered on 12.07.2025 at Police Station Janjgir, alleging offences under Sections 85, 351(2), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations centered on physical and mental abuse and dowry demands by the petitioners against the respondent, Anshu Tiwari, who is Akhil Tiwari’s wife. The marriage had been solemnized on 01.12.2020. A written complaint was filed on 26.04.2025, but the FIR was registered over two months later.
Procedural History
The case progressed as follows:
- 26.04.2025: Complainant filed written complaint with Police Station Janjgir
- 12.07.2025: FIR No. 0631/2025 registered under BNS provisions
- 03.09.2025: Final report submitted; cognizance taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, leading to Criminal Case No. 1561/2025
- 13.01.2026: High Court directed parties to mediation at the High Court Mediation Centre
- 16.01.2026: Parties executed a mutual settlement agreement
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, the final report, and all consequential criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that continuation of the case served no public interest given the settlement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings arising from a marital dispute when the parties have voluntarily and amicably settled their differences, even where the alleged offences are non-compoundable.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on Manoj Sharma v. State, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS permits quashing where the settlement is genuine, voluntary, and in the interest of justice. He emphasized that marital disputes are personal in nature and that prolonged litigation harms both parties, especially when reconciliation has occurred.
For the Respondent
The State and respondent No. 2 did not oppose the petition. The respondent No. 2, through her counsel, confirmed the authenticity of the settlement agreement and expressed willingness to withdraw all allegations. The State did not contest the legal proposition advanced by the petitioners.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on quashing of FIRs in matrimonial disputes. It noted that in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Apex Court held that courts may exercise power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, particularly where the dispute is essentially civil in nature and has been resolved.
"The power to quash is not to be exercised mechanically, but with a view to serve the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court."
The Court observed that the allegations, though serious, arose from a domestic relationship and were not of a nature that threatened public order or involved heinous violence. The settlement was recorded before the High Court Mediation Centre, with both parties present and represented by counsel. The Court found no indication of coercion, undue influence, or public interest considerations that would justify continuing the prosecution.
It further held that the BNSS, 2023, while replacing the CrPC, retained the underlying principles of judicial discretion in quashing proceedings. The Court emphasized that the object of criminal law is not merely punishment, but also restoration of social harmony where possible.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that Section 528 BNSS permits quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes upon genuine, voluntary settlement, even where offences are non-compoundable. The FIR, final report, and all consequential proceedings were quashed, subject to compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement dated 16.01.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Overrides Prosecution in Domestic Disputes
- Practitioners must now proactively explore mediation in matrimonial cases involving BNS offences, even those classified as non-compoundable
- A signed settlement before a court-supervised mediation center carries significant weight in quashing applications
- Courts will prioritize reconciliation over mechanical prosecution where no public interest is compromised
Documentation of Settlement Is Critical
- Oral assurances are insufficient; a written, witnessed, and court-recorded agreement is essential
- The settlement must clearly state withdrawal of all allegations and mutual waiver of claims
- Parties should obtain a certified copy of the settlement from the Mediation Centre for filing in quashing petitions
Judicial Discretion Is Broad, But Not Unfettered
- Courts will scrutinize the genuineness of settlement - signs of coercion, financial pressure, or third-party influence may disqualify it
- Quashing will not be granted in cases involving sexual assault, trafficking, or crimes against vulnerable groups
- The principle applies primarily to disputes rooted in personal relationships, not public wrongs
