Sidharth Mahajan & Anr. v. UT of J&K & Anr., 2025
The judgment clarifies the interplay between compounding provisions (Section 359 BNSS) and inherent powers (Section 528 BNSS) under the new criminal code framework.
Judgement Details
Court
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Date of Decision
4 November 2025
Judges
Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioners sought quashing of a charge-sheet arising from an FIR registered under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC, filed in connection with a matrimonial dispute.
-
The dispute between the husband and wife had been amicably settled, and a petition for divorce was pending before the competent civil court.
-
Both parties appeared before the High Court and confirmed that they had reached a mutual settlement, rendering continuation of the criminal proceedings purposeless.
-
The State opposed the petition, arguing that unrestricted quashing based on compromise could encourage lawlessness by allowing parties to nullify criminal proceedings at will.
Issues
-
Whether the provisions of Section 359 BNSS (compounding of offences) restrict the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings?
-
Whether criminal proceedings arising out of personal matrimonial disputes can be quashed upon a genuine settlement between the parties?
Held
-
The inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are not curtailed by Section 359 BNSS.
-
High Courts can quash criminal proceedings even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, provided:
-
The dispute is personal and private in nature,
-
The parties have genuinely settled the matter, and
-
The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
-
-
The Court emphasized that such powers must be exercised sparingly and cautiously.
Analysis
-
The judgment clarifies the interplay between compounding provisions (Section 359 BNSS) and inherent powers (Section 528 BNSS) under the new criminal code framework.
-
It reaffirms the principle that statutory provisions for compounding do not override or diminish the inherent powers of the High Court to ensure justice.
-
The decision aligns with and follows Supreme Court precedents, including:
-
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)
-
Narender Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)
-
Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat (2017)
-
Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2022)
-
Gopal Kumar B. Nar v. CBI (2022)
-
-
The Court observed that while compounding of non-compoundable offences cannot be allowed indiscriminately, matrimonial or personal disputes warrant a liberal approach when the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of trial serves no public interest.
-
The ruling provides important interpretive guidance on the continuity of CrPC jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, confirming that established principles remain relevant despite legislative restructuring.