1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS quashing FIR for matrimonial offences settled between parties. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Rajinder – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 6822/2025 | CRL.M.A. 28695/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yashpal Jolly
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yashpal Jolly
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya
The High Court can quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes under its inherent powers if the parties have settled, the possibility of conviction is remote, and justice is better served by ending the litigation.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Matrimonial disputes - High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly Section 482 of CrPC) to quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences, including Section 498A IPC, where a settlement is reached between the parties and no overarching public interest is affected. (Para 12)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Scope and Application - Criminal proceedings that overwhelmingly bear a civil flavor or arise out of matrimonial relationships/family disputes should be quashed if parties have resolved disputes, as continuation is an exercise in futility and justice demands peace restoration. (Para 13, 14)
Issues: Whether an FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC can be quashed on the grounds of a mutual settlement between the husband and wife despite the offences being non-compoundable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable; quashing opposed on ground of settlement. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Criminal proceedings arising from matrimony settled amicably; conviction unlikely; continuation would be futile and waste resources. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. High Court can quash non-compoundable matrimonial offences under BNSS Section 528 when settlement ends dispute and no public interest harmed. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement terms. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the ground of settlement?
Yes, under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court can quash such proceedings when the dispute is settled, no overarching public interest is adversely affected, and continuation would be futile. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. What principles guide the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement between parties?
The court must secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. It considers if conviction is remote, continuation would cause extreme injustice, and the offence is not heinous or of mental depravity. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. Do offences arising from matrimonial relationships qualify for quashing based on settlement?
Yes, offences arising from matrimonial or family disputes, predominantly of a civil nature, should be quashed when parties have resolved their entire disputes amicably. (Para 13 , 14 )
9. Does quashing based on settlement affect the rights of minor children in matrimonial cases?
No, the settlement and the quashing order do not affect the rights of the minor children; their custody remains as per the settlement terms. (Para 11 , 14 , 18 )
10. What is the legal effect of a settlement deed in criminal proceedings for matrimonial offences like dowry harassment?
If the settlement is voluntary and the marriage has been dissolved by mutual consent, continuation of criminal proceedings becomes an empty formality and is unlikely to result in conviction. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 )
O R D E R
% 28.01.2026
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. 871/2021 dated 14.10.2021, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
4. The FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, and petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No. 1.
5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 20.02.2016, but due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences the parties have lived separately since the year 2020. Two children were born from the wedlock.
6. Respondent No.2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell on 12.06.2021, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against seven accused persons, being her husband, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law, and three sisters-in-law.
7. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed only against respondent No. 2’s husband, mother-in-law, and younger brother-in-law [petitioners herein]. The older brother-in-law, and three sisters-in-law of respondent No. 2 were not charge sheeted.
8. During pendency of proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, as recorded in a agreement dated 02.01.2024.
9. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
10. The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO.
11. The Settlement Agreement contemplates dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. Pursuant thereto, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce [in HMA No. 2697/2024] by mutual consent by the Principal Judge, Family Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 09.10.2024. The settlement also contemplates custody of the two minor children with petitioner No. 1. The settlement also records that petitioner No.1 has returned all the articles/belongings of the complainant including her jewellery.
12. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is 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.
13. 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
