The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial offences (e.g., Section 498A IPC) if the parties have reached a voluntary settlement and the continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 2581/2026 (for exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 650/2026

1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Furkan Ahmed, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –

complainant.

2. 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. 497/2022 dated 14.07.2022, registered at Police Station Govind Puri, District South-East, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 25.09.2021, but have been living separately since 14.02.2022.

4. Respondent No. 2 instituted proceedings before the Crime against Women Cell on 14.07.2022. Thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered, at her instance, against four accused persons being her husband, parents-in-law, and brother-in-law. Respondent No. 2’s father-

in-law has since died on 28.09.2023.

5. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have entered into a settlement dated 24.04.2025, under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

6. The petitioners are present in person, and are identified by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and has been identified by her learned counsel and the IO.

7. The terms of the settlement inter alia provide that petitioner No. 1 will pay an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- towards a full and final settlement, of which Rs. 4,00,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of the impugned FIR. I am informed that a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is being paid to respondent No. 2 towards the full and final settlement. Mr. Rahber Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, has handed over a cheque for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Mr. Ahmed. A copy of the cheque is handed up in Court and is taken on record.

8. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties have mutually dissolved their marriage, as recorded in a Khula letter dated 18.10.2025.

9. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

10. 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 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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.

11. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court 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 theends ofjusticebeing theultimateguidingfactor.Nodoubt,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