Case at a Glance
A husband and four family members faced prosecution in Visakhapatnam under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (the BNS counterpart of Section 498A IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In August 2026 the couple signed a settlement for divorce by mutual consent with a total payment of ₹1.5 crore, part of which was paid by demand drafts. Though Section 85 BNS is non-compoundable, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, applying State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 03 SC CK 0018, held that the dispute was essentially matrimonial and the settlement voluntary, and quashed the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.
Crime No. 210 of 2025 was registered on 10 December 2025 at the Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam, on the wife’s complaint, for offences under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A charge-sheet led to C.C. No. 874 of 2026 before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The husband and four relatives (A1 to A5) sought quashing.
On 18 August 2026 the parties entered a Memorandum of Understanding at Visakhapatnam under which the husband and wife agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent (FCOP No. 1350 of 2026 before the II Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam) for a total settlement of ₹1.5 crore, with instalments linked to appearances in the quash and divorce proceedings. On 9 October 2026 both parties appeared before the High Court and were identified by counsel, and the wife confirmed by affidavit that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion, force or misrepresentation. Applications for compounding and quashing were filed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the High Court quash a prosecution for a non-compoundable offence of cruelty under Section 85 BNS and dowry offences when the spouses have genuinely settled and agreed to a mutual consent divorce?
Inherent Power Beyond Section 320: The Laxmi Narayan Test
Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam noted that Section 85 BNS is non-compoundable, so the question was whether the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) could be used. Relying on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, which in turn draws on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 03 SC CK 0039, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court held that “the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings” in non-compoundable cases that are predominantly civil or arise from matrimonial and family disputes — but that the power is not to be exercised for heinous and serious offences or offences under special statutes, and the antecedents and conduct of the accused must be considered.
The court also referred to Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., (2025) 02 SC CK 0693, (2025) 4 SCC 78, on weighing the nature of the offence, the voluntariness of the compromise and the accused’s conduct. It cautioned that “The purpose is not to encourage compromise in genuine cases of cruelty”, but found that here the dispute was essentially matrimonial and personal, the parties had “on their free will and volition” decided to put a quietus to all their disputes, no adverse antecedents were shown, and continuing the case would serve no purpose and would not advance the administration of criminal justice.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 85 BNS is non-compoundable, but the High Court may quash such proceedings under Section 528 BNSS where the dispute is essentially matrimonial and the settlement is genuine.
- Following State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, the power is not to be used for heinous or serious offences or offences under special statutes, and the accused’s antecedents and conduct must be considered.
- The wife’s personal appearance and affidavit confirmed that the compromise was voluntary; no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.
- The compounding applications and the criminal petition were allowed, and C.C. No. 874 of 2026 arising from Crime No. 210 of 2025 was quashed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows how cruelty and dowry prosecutions under the new BNS can be ended when the spouses genuinely settle.
- It confirms that the Laxmi Narayan framework continues to guide quashing under Section 528 BNSS.
- It highlights the court’s insistence on the complainant’s personal confirmation that the settlement is voluntary.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Couples
- A genuine settlement and mutual consent divorce can lead to quashing of the criminal case.
- The complainant is usually required to appear and confirm the compromise is voluntary.
For Counsel
- File compounding and quashing applications with the settlement deed, affidavits and payment proof.
- Address the Laxmi Narayan factors, including antecedents and the private nature of the dispute.
- Link settlement instalments to court appearances to protect both sides.
Key Takeaways
- Non-compoundable cruelty cases can be quashed on genuine settlement.
- Section 528 BNSS mirrors Section 482 CrPC.
- Voluntariness was confirmed in person.
- The case against all five accused was quashed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Section 85 BNS compoundable?
No. The court noted that it is non-compoundable, but quashed the proceedings using its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS because the dispute was matrimonial and genuinely settled.
What was the settlement?
Under the MoU of 18 August 2026, the couple agreed to a mutual consent divorce with a total settlement of ₹1.5 crore, paid in instalments by demand draft.
Will every 498A or Section 85 case be quashed on settlement?
No. The court said the purpose is not to encourage compromise in genuine cases of cruelty, and the power is not used for heinous or serious offences.
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court applied settled Supreme Court principles to bring a matrimonial criminal case to an end once the parties had genuinely resolved their dispute, while signalling that the power is not a licence to compromise serious cruelty.
Practical takeaway: Where spouses settle, a petition under Section 528 BNSS with a clear MoU, payment proof and the complainant’s personal confirmation can secure quashing of Section 85 BNS and dowry charges.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com