1. Quashing of matrimonial FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on ground of settlement between parties. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Manish Bansal – Appellant
Versus
State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 9157/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Samiksha Garg
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Ritambhra Kalra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Samiksha Garg
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Ritambhra Kalra
High Courts may exercise inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable matrimonial disputes upon amicable settlement/reconciliation of parties to secure the ends of justice, provided the offence is not heinous and public interest is not adversely affected.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of FIR - Matrimonial Disputes - Power of High Court - High Courts can exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, where parties have settled their disputes and no overarching public interest is affected, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. (Para 12)
(B) Nature of Offences - Distinguishing Serious Crimes from Private Disputes - While heinous crimes (e.g., murder, rape) cannot be quashed on the basis of a settlement, offences predominantly bearing a civil flavour or arising out of matrimonial relationships/family disputes may be quashed if reconciliation is achieved and the likelihood of conviction is remote. (Para 13, 14)
Issues: Whether an FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC can be quashed on the ground of reconciliation between the husband and wife despite the offence being non-compoundable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Parties seek quashing of FIR based on settlement and reconciliation; State counsel accepts notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. The court observed proceedings arose from a matrimonial dispute now resolved amicably, with parties reconciled and living together. (Para 14 )
4. High Courts can quash non-compoundable matrimonial offences under Section 528 BNSS if settlement is voluntary and no public interest affected. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Petition allowed; impugned FIR and all consequent proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement terms. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
6. Can a High Court quash a non-compoundable offence under Section 528 BNSS based on a settlement?
Yes, the Supreme Court held that High Courts can quash non-compoundable offences, particularly matrimonial disputes, where settlement is voluntary and no public interest is adversely affected. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. What principles guide the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS?
The guiding factors are to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The power is exercised sparingly, especially for offences with a predominantly civil or matrimonial character. (Para 13 )
8. Are criminal proceedings arising from a reconciled matrimonial dispute likely to result in conviction?
No, the court found that continuation of such proceedings would be an empty formality, unlikely to result in conviction, and would disrupt the reconciled marital life. (Para 14 )
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. 779/2018 dated 22.12.2018, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, 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. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, 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 was 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. Petitioner No.3 is the brother of petitioner No.1, and petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1.
6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 28.11.2003. One child was born from the marriage on 02.04.2005, who has attained majority. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they were living separately since September 2018.
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, mother-in-law, brother-
in-law and sister-in-law.
8. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.02.2024, which contemplated the parties obtaining divorce by mutual consent. The settlement further contemplated payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 and handing over the physical possession of an immovable property by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner No. 1.
9. Consequently, the settlement amount was paid to respondent No. 2, and the first motion was filed by the parties, which was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 24.04.2024. However, during pendency of these proceedings, the parties entered into another Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.05.2025, which states that the parties have since reconciled and are living together with their child.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
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 compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the perm
