1. Petition to quash matrimonial FIR under Sections 498A/406/506 IPC on ground of settlement between parties. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Parvinder Singh Kamboj – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 7962/2025 | CRL.M.A. 33313/2025 | CRL.M.A. 33314/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nafees Ahmad
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Richa Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nafees Ahmad
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Richa Sharma
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes if the parties have settled voluntarily, as continuation of such cases would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Inherent Powers of High Court - Quashing of Non-Compoundable Offences - Where a dispute arises out of matrimonial relationships and the parties have amicably settled, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if it satisfies that continuation would be an exercise in futility and justice demands peace be restored. (Para 13, 14)
(B) Matrimonial Disputes - Settlement and Conviction Probability - In cases predominantly bearing a civil flavour or arising from matrimonial discord, where a settlement is entered into voluntarily and a decree of divorce is obtained, the likelihood of conviction is remote, justifying the quashing of the FIR to prevent abuse of process and waste of public resources. (Para 15)
Issues: Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC could be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
family law
-
matrimonial disputes
- divorce by mutual consent (Para 11)
-
matrimonial disputes
Table of Contents
2. Parties seek quashing based on voluntary settlement and dissolution of marriage; State does not oppose. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Proceedings arise from matrimonial dispute, already dissolved by divorce; continuation would be futile and waste resources. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 528 BNSS when dispute is matrimonial and settled. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
5. Petition allowed; impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can a High Court quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings based on a settlement between parties?
Yes, under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is predominantly civil or matrimonial and settlement is voluntary. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. What is the guiding principle for quashing criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes?
The guiding principle is securing the ends of justice; continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility and cause prejudice to the accused when settlement is genuine. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
8. What factors does a court consider before quashing proceedings involving non-compoundable offences?
The court considers whether the offence is heinous, the dispute has a civil flavour, settlement is voluntary, and conviction is unlikely; matrimonial disputes qualify for quashing. (Para 14 , 15 )
O R D E R
% 23.02.2026
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. 662/2018, dated 17.12.2018, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Richa 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 parties are present on video conference, and are identified by their learned counsel.
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.
6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 25.10.2015. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 14.05.2017.
One female child was born from the wedlock on 22.12.2016.
7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against four accused persons, being her husband, parents-in-law, and her sister-in-law.
8. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against respondent No. 2’s husband and parents-in-law. The sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 was, however, not charge sheeted. I am informed that father-in-law of respondent No. 2 was discharged by the Magistrate’s Court vide order dated 15.04.2024.
9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated
14.01.2025.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court on 15.04.2025.
12. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
13. 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.
14. 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 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 cap
