1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR for matrimonial offences based on settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Nitin Rathi – Appellant
Versus
State Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 6399/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Dabas, Samarth Dabas
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya, Ajay Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Dabas, Samarth Dabas
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya, Ajay Kumar
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial offences under its inherent powers if the parties have amicably settled, as continuing such proceedings would be futile and not serve the ends of justice.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Matrimonial Disputes - Compromise between parties - High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) to quash FIRs even for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is predominantly private/matrimonial in nature and a settlement is reached, as continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility. (Para 9, 11)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Guidelines for Settlement - Power to quash non-compoundable offences is to be exercised sparingly and is distinguished from the power to compound; the guiding factor is to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, provided the offence does not involve heinous crimes or moral turpitude. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/354/34 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Parties seek quashing of FIR due to amicable settlement, confirmed as voluntary by counsel. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Proceedings arise from matrimonial discord, settled after divorce; trial would be futile and waste resources. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. High Court can quash non-compoundable, matrimonial offences on settlement under Section 528 BNSS. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all proceedings quashed, parties bound by settlement terms. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement?
Yes, under Section 528 BNSS, if the dispute is predominantly civil, arising from matrimony, and no public interest is harmed. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. What principles guide quashing of FIR for matrimonial disputes?
Courts consider whether the offence has a civil flavour, the settlement is voluntary, and conviction is unlikely. (Para 10 , 11 )
O R D E R
% 14.01.2026
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 164/2025 dated 23.04.2025, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, South West District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and all
proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel, Mr. Rajesh Dabas, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by
her learned counsel, Mr. Ajay Kumar, and the IO.
3. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 21.02.2023. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 20.06.2024.
No child was born from the wedlock.
4. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, P.S. Delhi Cantonment, on 25.10.2024, against her husband (petitioner No. 1) and the other petitioners, who are his family members, on allegations of harassment for dowry, physical abuse, and outraging her modesty, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered on 23.04.2025. No chargesheet has yet been filed.
5. With the intervention of relatives, friends and well-wishers, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes on 30.06.2025. A settlement agreement was executed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, whereby they agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
6. In terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- to respondent No. 2 in three instalments towards full and final settlement of all her claims.
5. Mr. Rajesh Dabas submits that pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, South West District, Dwarka, Delhi, on 11.11.2025.
7. Mr. Ajay Kumar states that the allegation under Section 354 IPC against petitioner No. 3, i.e., brother-in-law of respondent No. 2, arose out of a misunderstanding stemming from the domestic discord.
8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
Thus, they seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
9. Although the offences under Sections 354 and 498A of IPC are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.
10. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. has held as follows:
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of ser
