1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR for matrimonial offences on ground of settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Rizwan Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 7169/2025 | CRL.M.A. 30140/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shailesh Tiwari
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Sharvan, Rajnish, Saloni Uppal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shailesh Tiwari
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Sharvan, Rajnish, Saloni Uppal
The High Court can quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes under its inherent powers if the parties have settled voluntarily, as continuation would be futile and injustice would be caused, provided the offence is not heinous or against public interest.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Non-compoundable offences - High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to quash proceedings in matrimonial disputes where a voluntary settlement is reached, provided no overarching public interest is affected and the possibility of conviction is remote. (Para 9, 11)
(B) Matrimonial Disputes - Settlement - Where parties have resolved disputes and dissolved marriage, continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC is an exercise in futility and against the ends of justice. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial offences can be quashed based on a settlement between the parties.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Parties submitted settlement was voluntary and sought quashing of FIR and all proceedings. (Para 7 )
3. Proceedings arise from matrimonial relationship culminating in divorce; continuation would be an empty formality. (Para 11 )
4. High Courts can quash non-compoundable offences when dispute settled and no public interest affected. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement between parties?
Yes, under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC), where the dispute is settled and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What types of offences are suitable for quashing on the basis of a compromise?
Offences with a predominantly civil flavour, such as those arising from matrimonial or family disputes, are suitable for quashing on compromise. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. What is the guiding factor for a High Court when quashing proceedings based on a settlement?
The guiding factors are to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of any court. (Para 10 )
O R D E R
% 21.01.2026
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. 135/2013 dated 13.05.2013, registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar, District North West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. The FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the father and sister of petitioner No.1, respectively.
3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 24.09.1997 according to Muslim rites and customs. No child was born from the wedlock. Differences arose in the course of marriage, and they started residing separately since 27.02.2012. No child was born from the wedlock.
4. Subsequently, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on 30.04.2013 against her husband (petitioner No.1) and three of his family members, alleging that she was subjected to severe mental and physical cruelty on account of persistent demands for dowry, and further alleging that her husband had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of their marriage without her knowledge or consent. Pursuant thereto, the subject FIR was registered on 13.05.2013, and a chargesheet was thereafter filed on 25.02.2014. During the pendency of Criminal Case No. 53961/2016 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Courts, District North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, one of the accused, namely Mrs. Azizunisha (mother of petitioner No.1), expired on 30.08.2016, and the proceedings against the deceased stood abated vide order dated 13.04.2017. The case is at the stage of prosecution evidence and is next listed on 01.04.2026.
5. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have entered into a settlement and amicably resolved all their disputes under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, vide Settlement/Agreement Deed dated 27.04.2023. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 in three installments.
6. Petitioner No. 1 is present in person, and is identified by Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel, and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by her learned counsel, Mr. Sharvan, and the IO.
7. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, and without any coercion or undue pressure. Mr. Tiwari also informs the Court that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 have dissolved their marriage vide Khulanama dated 18.12.2025. In view thereof, they seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings.
8. The present petition has been filed by petitioner No.1 on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 has furnished a No Objection Affidavit dated 22.09.2025, wherein she has categorically stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings in entirety, upon receipt of the settled amount from petitioner No.1.
9. 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.
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 settle
