The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, on 31 October 2025, quashed criminal proceedings filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against petitioner Sidharth Mahajan and his family, after both sides informed the court that they had amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute.
Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, who heard the case, noted that though quashing of non-compoundable offences must be done with “great care and caution,” the present matter arising purely from a personal dispute between husband and wife fell within the exception where such powers could be rightly exercised.
Background
The case stemmed from FIR No. 11/2024, lodged at the Women Cell Police Station, Jammu, on 13 March 2024, under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives) and 109 (abetment) of the IPC.
Following investigation, the police had filed charge sheet No. 15/2024 before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Electricity, Jammu.
However, as proceedings progressed, the estranged couple petitioner Sidharth Mahajan and respondent (name withheld) informed the court that they had settled their differences and filed for mutual divorce before the competent civil court, which was likely to be finalized soon.
Both parties, present in person, confirmed that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion.
"We have resolved all issues amicably and wish to move on peacefully," their counsel submitted.
Court's Observations
Justice Wani took note of the submissions and referenced a long line of Supreme Court judgments that allow courts to exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings when it serves the ends of justice.
The judge quoted from the landmark decision in Parbatbhai Aahir vs State of Gujarat (2017), reiterating that the High Court's inherent powers are meant to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, even in cases where the offence is technically non-compoundable.
The bench observed, "The power to quash criminal proceedings upon settlement cannot be exercised mechanically, yet in personal disputes where the chance of conviction is remote, continuing trial would only be an empty formality."
Justice Wani also drew from Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) and Narender Singh vs State of Punjab (2014), noting that the High Court must consider whether continuing such proceedings would be unfair or contrary to justice, especially when the dispute is private in nature and does not affect public policy or social interest.
The judge added,
"The law is clear courts must not waste valuable judicial time on futile prosecutions that have lost their substance due to reconciliation between the parties."
Citing Supreme Court Precedents
The order extensively discussed how the Supreme Court has consistently permitted quashing of criminal cases involving matrimonial or civil disputes, even in non-compoundable offences, provided the matter is settled voluntarily.
Referring to Kapil Gupta vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2022), the judge highlighted how even young litigants facing dual proceedings should not be made to undergo “unnecessary agony” when both sides prefer peace over prolonged litigation.
Similarly, judgments in Madan Mohan Abott vs State of Punjab (2008) and Satish Nehra vs Delhi Administration (1996) were cited to emphasize that courts, already burdened with heavy caseloads, should not be compelled to conduct trials that are bound to end in acquittal.
The bench reasoned, "When the court is fairly certain that there is no prospect of conviction, insisting on trial is a waste of precious judicial time," the order recorded.
Decision
After reviewing the facts, precedents, and the settlement terms, Justice Wani concluded that this was a fit case to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.
He remarked that criminal cases arising out of matrimonial discord between near relatives often have a predominant civil flavour, and once harmony is restored, continuing prosecution serves no purpose.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the charge-sheet No. 15/2024 and all proceedings pending before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Jammu, related to the FIR No. 11/2024.
"The petition is allowed," the order read, "and the continuance of the case would only be an exercise in futility."
With that, the matter was disposed of, marking a peaceful legal closure for both families.
Case Title: Sidharth Mahajan & Anr. vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr.
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 814 of 2025
Date of Decision: 31 October 2025
