1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR for matrimonial offences on ground of settlement. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Mukesh – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1252/2026 | CRL.M.A. 5041/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deep Kishore
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deep Kishore
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya
High Courts can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial offences under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) if a voluntary settlement is reached, as continuing such proceedings would be an exercise in futility and fail to serve the ends of justice.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Matrimonial Disputes - The High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, where parties have entered into a voluntary settlement, provided the dispute is predominantly private/matrimonial in nature and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 14, 16)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC - Distinguishable from the power to compound offences; to be exercised sparingly to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court, especially where the likelihood of conviction is remote. (Para 15)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Parties submitted settlement was voluntary and sought quashing of the FIR and all proceedings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Proceedings arise from matrimonial dispute; complainant affirmed settlement; conviction unlikely; continuation would be futile and waste resources. (Para 15 , 16 )
4. High Court can quash non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes when settlement is voluntary and no public interest is harmed. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement terms. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement?
Yes, under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court can quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is settled, especially in matrimonial cases, and no public interest is adversely affected. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. What is the guiding principle for quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement?
The guiding factor is to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The court must be satisfied that continuation would be futile and cause injustice. (Para 15 )
8. Are there categories of offences where settlement-based quashing is not permitted?
Yes, for heinous offences like murder, rape, dacoity, offences of mental depravity, and offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, settlement cannot be a ground for quashing. (Para 15 )
O R D E R
% 13.02.2026
1. 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. 556/2017, dated 22.12.2017, registered at Police Station Kalkaji, 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. 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 petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO.
5. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No.1.
6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 15.11.2013. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 16.07.2017.
No child was born from the wedlock.
7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against her husband, mother-in-law, four brothers-in-law, and four sisters-in-law.
8. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against the petitioners herein, being the husband, mother-in-law, and one brother-in-law. The husband was charged with an additional offence under Section 509 of IPC, and the brother-in-law was further charged with Sections 354/354B of IPC. Rest of the family members were not charge sheeted.
9. The marriage stood dissolved prior to the settlement in view of a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed by the Family Court on
11.10.2021.
10. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Order dated 10.11.2025, under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts.
11. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
12. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court, and submits that the allegations against petitioner No. 3 under Sections 354 and 354B of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding in connection with her matrimonial dispute.
13. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
14. 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.
15. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. has 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 compensa
