1. Petition to quash FIR for matrimonial offences under IPC sections 498A/506/34 on ground of settlement between parties. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Gaurav Gautam – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1069/2026 | CRL.M.A. 4226/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishi Kumar
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Pragati Gupta, Samar Pratap Singh, Sachin Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishi Kumar
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Pragati Gupta, Samar Pratap Singh, Sachin Sharma
High Courts may exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial offences, including those under Sections 498A and 354A IPC, if the parties have settled amicably and the proceedings would otherwise be an exercise in futility.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Matrimonial Disputes - Non-compoundable offences - Exercise of inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) is permissible to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences when the parties have settled amicably and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 11)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Settlement - Where disputes predominantly bear a matrimonial flavor and parties have reconciled, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and an abuse of process, especially when the likelihood of conviction is remote. (Para 12, 13)
Issues: Whether the FIR registered under Sections 498A/506/34 and 354A of the IPC can be quashed on the ground of a voluntary settlement between the husband and wife.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners sought quashing of FIR based on settlement; respondent No. 2 filed no-objection affidavit confirming voluntary settlement. (Para 2 , 7 , 9 )
3. Continuation of proceedings after reconciliation impedes married life; conviction unlikely and further proceedings would be futile. (Para 12 , 13 )
4. High Court can quash non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes when settlement exists and no public interest is affected. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by terms of settlement. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between parties?
Yes, the High Court can quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences in its inherent power if continuation would be futile and justice demands it. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What factors guide a High Court in deciding whether to quash non-compoundable matrimonial offences after a settlement?
Guiding factors are securing ends of justice and preventing abuse of process. Offenses arising from matrimonial relationships should be quashed when parties resolve disputes. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. Are all non-compoundable offences eligible for quashing based on settlement, or are there exceptions?
Serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, or offences under special statutes like corruption laws are not eligible for quashing based on settlement. (Para 11 , 12 )
9. Can an offence under Section 354A IPC be quashed when the parties have settled a matrimonial dispute?
Yes, when the allegation arose from a misunderstanding in a matrimonial context and the complainant no longer wishes to pursue it, the court may quash proceedings. (Para 9 , 13 )
O R D E R
% 09.02.2026
1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Sachin Sharma, 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. 791/2023 dated 05.12.2023, registered at Police Station Palam Village, District South West, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
4. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 04.03.2022, but started living separately in October 2022. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the Crime Against Women Cell alleging demands for dowry on multiple occasions, as well as physical and verbal abuse and cruelty. Pursuant thereto, the impugned FIR was registered at her instance against three accused persons, namely her husband and parents-in-law [petitioners herein].
5. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A /406/354A/506/34 of the IPC. Petitioner No. 3 was chargesheeted under Section 354A of the IPC.
6. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since entered into a settlement dated 08.10.2025, under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. As per the settlement, the parties agreed to resume cohabitation, and to fulfill their matrimonial obligations.
7. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
8. The parties are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.
9. Respondent No. 2 has filed her no-objection affidavit before this Court, and learned counsel confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any force or coercion. Respondent No. 2 further submits that the allegations, including the allegation against her father-in- law [petitioner No. 3 herein] for the offence punishable under Section 354A of the IPC, arose out of a misunderstanding, and that she does not wish to pursue the same.
10. The settlement records that the parties have been living together since 25.08.2025, and that respondent No. 2 shall withdraw the pending cases.
11. Although offences under Sections 354A and 498A of the IPC are 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.
12. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 t
