The High Court, reaffirming established principles, clarified that FIRs stemming from matrimonial disputes under Sections 323, 342, and 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, if the parties have amicably settled the matter and the complainant supports quashing. This judgment follows and applies Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents, confirming the continuing precedential value for similar future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/40662/2025 of Rasleen Kaur and another Vs State of Haryana and another |
| CNR | PHHC010958582025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and follows established Full Bench and Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Quashing of FIR / Matrimonial disputes |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIRs relating to non-heinous matrimonial disputes can be quashed on compromise under section 528 BNSS |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that when parties in a matrimonial dispute amicably settle, and the complainant expressly supports quashing the FIR, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings, especially for non-heinous offences like those under Sections 323, 342, and 506 IPC. The principles laid down in Kulwinder Singh (Full Bench) and approved by Gian Singh (Supreme Court) continue to apply. Settlement between parties and victim’s no-objection were decisive. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007 (3) RCR (Crl) 1052), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principles regarding quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise in matrimonial and private disputes as recognized by Full Bench and Supreme Court; the scope of Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The dispute arose during matrimonial proceedings and resulted in FIR No. 30 dated 19.02.2025 under Sections 323, 342, and 506 IPC. Parties settled all disputes, obtained divorce by mutual consent, and the complainant/victim gave an affidavit affirming no objection to quashing. The Hon’ble Division Bench expressed that quashing would be appropriate based on compromise. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, and potentially the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007 (3) RCR (Crl) 1052); Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that FIRs arising out of private matrimonial disputes—including those under Sections 323, 342, and 506 IPC—can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS where both parties settle and the complainant expressly consents.
- The precedent is binding within Punjab & Haryana and persuasive nationwide, especially regarding non-heinous, non-society-affecting offences.
- The Court explicitly honors settlement and no-objection affidavit by the complainant as sufficient for quashing despite earlier merit-based prayer.
- The power under Section 528 BNSS is coterminous with the approach under Section 482 CrPC, as long as established judicial principles are respected.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the matter initially sought quashing on merits, but during the pendency of divorce/matrimonial proceedings, the parties amicably settled all disputes.
- The Division Bench, dealing with related matrimonial matters and dissolution of marriage, indicated that quashing based on compromise would be appropriate.
- An affidavit by the complainant, along with her presence and her counsel’s submissions, verified the genuineness of compromise and the absence of objection to quashing.
- The Court converted the petition to one for compromise-based quashing, relying on the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh and its approval by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh.
- Applying these authorities, the Court held that in appropriate cases of private disputes, especially matrimonial, courts may exercise inherent powers to quash FIRs if justice would be served and the victim consents.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled in pending proceedings.
- The complainant has filed an affidavit of no objection for quashing.
- The parties have accepted divorce by mutual consent; there is no surviving grievance.
Respondent (Complainant)
- The matter has been settled without coercion.
- Explicitly affirmed no objection to quashing of the FIR.
- Marriage stands dissolved by decree under Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act.
State
- No distinct objection recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
During the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, an FIR (No. 30 dated 19.02.2025) was registered at Police Station Arya Nagar, Rohtak, under Sections 323, 342, and 506 IPC. Subsequently, the parties settled all their disputes amicably. The complainant provided an affidavit of no objection to quashing. The Division Bench dissolved the marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and noted the appropriateness of quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise.
Statutory Analysis
The Court exercised its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is functionally analogous to Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers of High Court), to quash criminal proceedings. The quashing was based on principles established for non-heinous offences, such as those arising from private matrimonial disputes, where the complainant’s consent and amicable settlement are present.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new procedures are set or discussed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.