Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Chandan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1186/2026 | CRL.M.A. 4734/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lokesh Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya, Bikram Chand Sharma, Pawan Kumar
The High Court can quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes under its inherent powers if the parties have settled voluntarily, as such cases are predominantly private and continuation would serve no judicial purpose.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Matrimonial Disputes - Settlement between parties - High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash FIRs of non-compoundable offences, such as Section 498A IPC, where the dispute is predominantly private/matrimonial and a voluntary settlement is reached, as continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility. (Para 12, 14)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Distinction from Compounding - Power to quash under Section 482 CrPC is distinct from the power to compound under Section 320 CrPC; it should be exercised sparingly to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, particularly in cases where the possibility of conviction is remote. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the husband and wife despite the offences being non-compoundable.
O R D E R
% 11.02.2026
1. 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. 250/2018 dated 10.09.2018, registered at Police Station Mandawli, Fazal Pur, District East, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Bikram Chand Sharma, 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 impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1.
5. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 21.04.2015. One female child was born from the wedlock on 21.06.2016. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since July 2016.
6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Mandawali, Fazalpur, against her husband and her in-laws, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered on 10.09.2018. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed. However, the charges against the in-laws were dropped, vide order dated 12.09.2023, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), East District, Karkardooma Courts. The case [Cr. Case 1104/2019] is currently pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karkardooma Courts, and is next listed on 12.03.2026 for prosecution evidence.
7. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 15.01.2026, under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts.
8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
9. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
10. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by Mr. Sharma and the IO.
11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on 09.02.2026 [in HMA No. 248/2026].
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., 1(2012)10SCC303. 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 co
