The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that in private matrimonial disputes, the absence of a formal joint compromise petition is not a barrier to quashing non-compoundable offences if a conclusive, mutually admitted Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists between the parties. This judgment follows and applies Supreme Court precedents, and binds subordinate courts, particularly on the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/3224/2025 of SANDEEP CHANCHLANI AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR |
| CNR | WBCHCA0340742025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent (B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Family Law / Procedural Law (BNSS Section 528; IPC; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) |
| Questions of Law | Whether inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes based solely on an MOU, without the procedural formality of a joint compromise petition |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that for disputes fundamentally rooted in matrimonial discord, a comprehensive and mutually admitted settlement (even if evidenced only through an MOU) is sufficient ground for quashing non-compoundable offences. The presentation of the compromise in any particular procedural form (such as a joint petition) is a technicality that cannot override the substantive justice attained through settlement. Supreme Court decisions in B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh were followed, holding that inherent powers of the High Court are wide and can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, prevent misuse of the judicial process, and prioritise the settlement’s substance over its procedural presentation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence that restrictively interpreting compounding would frustrate justice in family matters; the wide amplitude of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash in appropriate cases; the primacy of substance over procedure in family/private disputes |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Parties (husband, parents-in-law, and wife) were involved in criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498A, 325, 354B, 406, 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 D.V. Act, arising from matrimonial discord. Both sides entered into a comprehensive, irrevocable settlement by executing a notarised MOU dated 24 May 2025, agreeing to withdraw all proceedings. The complainant expressly conveyed her consent and satisfaction with the terms, and no objection was raised to the quashing plea. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The absence of a joint compromise petition is not fatal; a duly executed and mutually admitted MOU suffices for quashing in matrimonial disputes.
- The substance of a voluntary, comprehensive, and unequivocal settlement will override procedural technicalities.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment when seeking quashing of non-compoundable matrimonial offences solely on an MOU, provided the opposing party records ‘no objection.’
- The judgment reinforces the distinction between public offences and private/family disputes for the purposes of quashing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court recognised its wide inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash criminal proceedings “to secure the ends of justice.”
- The court identified the foundational nature of the dispute as private and personal, rooted exclusively in matrimonial discord.
- It noted that the Supreme Court, especially in B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh, had consistently permitted quashing of even non-compoundable offences in matrimonial cases when parties settled genuinely.
- The court gave primacy to the substance of a comprehensive, voluntary, and irrevocable MOU, holding that the absence of a joint compromise petition is merely a technicality.
- The complainant’s unequivocal consent and no objection to quashing further demonstrated finality and satisfaction, meeting the substantive requirements for intervention.
- Judicial resources and the ends of justice were best served by quashing the proceedings, given the complete and settled nature of all issues.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The dispute is essentially personal and arises from a matrimonial context.
- A comprehensive, final settlement has extinguished the cause of action.
- Continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process and judicial futility.
Respondent/De facto Complainant
- Admitted the genuineness and voluntariness of the settlement.
- Expressed no objection to the prayer for quashing.
- Acknowledged that all claims, financial and otherwise, have been fully satisfied as per the MOU.
Factual Background
The case arose from Rabindranagar P.S. Case No. 166/2024, involving allegations against a husband and his parents under Sections 498A, 325, 354B, 406, 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. During the pendency of the case, the parties entered into a comprehensive settlement through a notarised Memorandum of Understanding dated 24 May 2025, committing to withdraw all legal proceedings against each other. Both parties confirmed the settlement’s genuineness and voluntariness in court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was the principal provision considered, empowering the High Court to exercise inherent powers for quashing criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
- The court interpreted Section 528 expansively, in line with Supreme Court authority, to permit quashing even of non-compoundable offences in private, matrimonial disputes where a comprehensive settlement has been reached.
- Statutory restrictions on compounding were not deemed absolute when the nature of the dispute is private and the settlement complete.
- IPC Sections 498A, 325, 354B, 406, and 34, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were noted as the offences in question, with their amenability to quashing governed by the Supreme Court’s approach in similar matters.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Treated the requirement of a formal joint compromise petition as a procedural technicality and not mandatory where the MOU’s genuineness and finality are admitted by both sides.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and reaffirms established Supreme Court law (B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh) on quashing in matrimonial disputes based on settlement, even for non-compoundable offences.