1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS for quashing FIR under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Section 4 DP Act based on settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Sanay Katariya – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 981/2026|CRL.M.A. 3865/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aman Singh, Sandeep Singh, Shashikant
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Nitin Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aman Singh, Sandeep Singh, Shashikant
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Nitin Kumar
High Courts may exercise inherent powers to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes if the parties have settled amicably, as continuation of such cases would be an exercise in futility and opposed to the ends of justice.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Matrimonial Disputes - Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) allows the High Court to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences, including Section 498A IPC, where a settlement is reached and no overriding public interest is impinged. (Para 11)
(B) Power of High Court - Criteria for Quashing - Criminal cases predominantly arising out of matrimonial relationships or family disputes should be quashed when parties resolve disputes, as continuation of proceedings may be an exercise in futility and result in extreme injustice. (Para 11, 12)
Issues: Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings for offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act can be quashed based on an amicable settlement between the parties.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Parties submitted settlement deed and sought quashing of FIR; State and complainant had no objection. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Dispute arose from matrimonial relationship and marriage was dissolved; continuation of proceedings would be futile. (Para 3 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. High Court may quash non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes if settlement is voluntary and no public interest is harmed. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement terms. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement between parties?
Yes, the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS to quash proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial disputes if settlement is voluntary and no public interest is affected. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What factors guide the High Court in deciding whether to quash proceedings based on a settlement?
The guiding factors are securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of court process. The court must assess if conviction is unlikely and continuation would cause extreme injustice. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Are offences arising from matrimonial or family disputes treated differently for quashing based on settlement?
Yes, such offences, even if non-compoundable, are considered to bear a civil flavour and are more amenable to quashing when parties have amicably resolved their differences. (Para 11 , 12 )
O R D E R
% 05.02.2026
1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Nitin Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 918/2021 dated 30.12.2021, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, District North East, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [“DP Act”], on the basis of an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.
3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 19.06.2017. Owing to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit harmoniously and have been living separately since 08.08.2020. No child has been born from the said wedlock.
4. Subsequent to leaving the matrimonial home, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on 10.08.2020, which culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR, against her husband and his family members.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against five accused persons [petitioners herein] under Sections 498A /406/34 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the DP Act. Although respondent No. 2’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC contained allegations under Section 376 of the IPC against one of the family members and under Section 377 of the IPC against her husband, those allegations are not part of the present proceedings, and cognizance has been taken only under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the DP Act.
6. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes, as recorded in a Deed of Settlement dated 20.12.2023, entered into between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
7. The petitioners are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and has been identified by her learned counsel and the IO.
8. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, passed by the Family Court on 21.08.2024.
9. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/-, alongwith the return of certain articles, to respondent No. 2 by petitioner No.1, towards full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court and represented by counsel, confirms that she has received the said amount and articles.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, and without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure.
11. Although offences under Section 4 98A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act are non-compoundable in nature, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts may exercise their inherent jurisdiction under Section 4 82 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS] to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the dispute has been amicably settled between the accused and the complainant, and where such quashing does not impinge upon any overriding public interest. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], which 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 compo
