1. Quashing of matrimonial FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC on ground of settlement between parties. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Rajiv Kumar Roy – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 361/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Janki Raman Jha
For the Respondents: Sanjay Lao, Aryan Sachdeva, Jitender Mehta, Lalit Kumar, Abinav Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Janki Raman Jha
For the Respondents: Sanjay Lao, Aryan Sachdeva, Jitender Mehta, Lalit Kumar, Abinav Kumar
The High Court can quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes (e.g., Section 498A IPC) under its inherent powers if the parties reach a voluntary settlement, as continuing such proceedings would be futile and serve no public interest.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Jurisdiction - Quashing of FIR - Matrimonial Disputes - High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings, including non-compoundable offences like Section 498A IPC, if the parties have amicably settled their disputes and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 12)
(B) Legal Principles for Quashing based on Compromise - Distinction between compounding and inherent powers - The power to quash is to be exercised sparingly, specifically in cases with a predominantly civil or matrimonial flavor where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the FIR containing allegations under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement and subsequent divorce by mutual consent.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- criminal procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek quashing based on settlement; complainant affirms voluntary settlement; State and respondent have no objection. (Para 2 , 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 15 )
3. Criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial dispute unlikely to result in conviction; continuation would be an empty formality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. High Court may quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences when dispute is settled and no public interest is affected. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement; minor child's rights unaffected. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement between parties?
Yes, under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), the High Court may quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences when the dispute is settled and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. What types of cases are suitable for quashing criminal proceedings based on compromise?
Cases arising from matrimonial relationships, family disputes, or civil/commercial transactions with a predominantly civil flavor are suitable, unlike heinous or serious offences like murder or rape. (Para 13 )
8. What is the guiding factor for the High Court when exercising inherent power to quash criminal proceedings?
The guiding factor is to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court, ensuring the continuation of proceedings would be futile and cause oppression or prejudice. (Para 13 )
O R D E R
% 02.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 3481/2026 (for exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 361/2026
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIR No. 270/2025 dated 29.07.2025, lodged at Police Station Saket, New Delhi, under Sections 498A /406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Jitender Mehta, 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 and 3 are the parents-in-law of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 4 is the sister of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 5 is the daughter of petitioner No. 4 [niece of petitioner No. 1].
5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 04.06.2017, but have lived separately since 09.06.2023. A child was born from the wedlock on 23.07.2022.
6. Respondent No.2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell on 16.12.2024, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against five accused persons, being her husband, parents-
in-law, sister-in-law, and niece-in-law.
7. No charge sheet has been filed yet.
8. During pendency of proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, as recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 11.10.2025.
9. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
10. The petitioners are present, and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by her learned counsel and IO.
11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce [in HMA No. 2193/2025] by mutual consent by the Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi, on 12.12.2025.
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 HighCourt quashes a criminal proceedinghavingregard 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. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercanti
