1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR for offences under Sections 354/506/34 IPC on ground of settlement. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Himanshu Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 6726/2025 | CRL.M.As. 28295/2025 | CRL.M.As. 28297/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Viraj Kadam
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Bal Kishan Sharma, Himanshu Kaushik
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Viraj Kadam
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Bal Kishan Sharma, Himanshu Kaushik
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is matrimonial/private and a settlement is reached, ensuring the ends of justice and preventing abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of FIR - Non-compoundable offences - Inherent powers of High Court - High Courts may quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences where a settlement is reached between the parties, provided the dispute is predominantly private or matrimonial in nature and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 8)
(B) Matrimonial Disputes - Settlement and Quashing - Where criminal proceedings arise out of matrimonial relationships and the parties have settled their disputes, the continuation of such proceedings is often an exercise in futility as the likelihood of conviction becomes remote. (Para 9, 10)
Issues: Whether the FIR involving non-compoundable offences under the IPC could be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties arising out of a matrimonial dispute.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Parties seek quashing of FIR based on settlement, despite some averments regarding romantic involvement being disputed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Proceedings arise from matrimonial relationship dissolved as nullity; continuation of criminal proceedings would be an empty formality. (Para 10 )
4. High Court may quash non-compoundable offences on settlement when no public interest is affected, per Gian Singh and Narinder Singh. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a compromise between the parties?
Yes, if the dispute has a civil or matrimonial flavour and no overarching public interest is adversely affected, to secure ends of justice. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. What are the guiding principles for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement?
The court must be satisfied that the possibility of conviction is remote, continuation would cause extreme injustice, and the dispute is predominantly civil or matrimonial in nature. (Para 9 )
O R D E R
% 16.01.2026
1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Bal Kishan Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –
complainant.
2. The petitioner has 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. 381/2022 dated 19.05.2022, lodged at Police Station Begampur, District Rohini, New Delhi, under Sections 354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.
3. The FIR came to be registered at the instance of respondent No. 2.
It is alleged therein that the petitioner instigated respondent No. 2 against her family members and pressurized her to get married at the earliest. It is further alleged that the petitioner furnished false information about himself and molested respondent No. 2 on multiple occasions. It is also stated that the petitioner threatened to commit suicide, on account of which respondent No. 2 was compelled to marry him on 09.05.2022.
4. The parties have since entered into a settlement, recorded in an order dated 22.07.2024, passed by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Family Court, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
5. The petitioner is present, and is identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conference, and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO.
6. Although some of the averments in the petition are disputed, particularly with regard to the romantic involvement of the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the fact that they had solemnized their marriage on 09.05.2022 is not disputed. The parties have also consented to a decree of dissolution of their marriage as a nullity, as recorded in an order of the Family Court dated 24.08.2024.
7. Respondent No. 2 confirms that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR at this stage, and she remains bound by the compromise.
8. Although the offence under Section 354 of the 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 CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of 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.
9. 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 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 serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. Howe
