1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR for matrimonial offences based on settlement. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Dhananjay Singh – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 3025/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Chirag Alagh, Naman
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Chirag Alagh, Naman
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes if a settlement is reached and its continuation would be futile, provided the offence is not heinous or of moral turpitude.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of FIR - Matrimonial Disputes - Inherent Powers of High Court - Where criminal proceedings arise out of matrimonial discord and parties have reached an amicable settlement, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR, even for non-compoundable offences, provided the dispute is predominantly private and no overriding public interest is affected. (Para 14, 16)
(B) Inherent Jurisdiction - BNSS/CrPC - Criteria for Quashing - The Court may quash proceedings if it form an opinion that such action secures the ends of justice or prevents abuse of process, particularly when the possibility of conviction is remote and the dispute bears a predominantly civil or matrimonial flavor. (Para 15, 16)
Issues: Whether the FIR registered under Sections 354/34 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Parties submitted settlement resolved disputes; continuation of proceedings would be futile and serve no useful purpose. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Disputes arose from matrimonial discord; allegations under Sections 354/354B IPC arose from misunderstanding with no grave criminality. (Para 16 )
4. High Court can quash non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes when settlement is genuine and no public interest harmed. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by terms of settlement. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences after a settlement?
Yes, in appropriate circumstances, the High Court may quash non-compoundable offences under its inherent powers where a genuine compromise exists and no overriding public interest is adversely affected. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
7. What factors guide the High Court in quashing proceedings based on a settlement?
Guiding factors are securing ends of justice and preventing abuse of process. The court considers the remote likelihood of conviction, oppression to accused, and whether the offence is heinous or has civil flavor. (Para 15 )
8. Are offences arising from matrimonial disputes suitable for quashing on settlement?
Yes, offences arising out of matrimonial relationships or family disputes should be quashed when parties have resolved their disputes, as they overwhelmingly bear a civil flavor. (Para 15 , 16 )
O R D E R
21.04.2026
1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 178/2022 dated 02.02.2022, for offences under Sections 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”], registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Outer North, Delhi, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Chirag Alagh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by their respective learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been similarly identified by her learned counsel and the IO.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
5. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 30.11.2019, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and differences in temperament, the parties have been living separately since 15.05.2020.
6. Respondent No. 2 made a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on 27.09.2021, against her husband, father-in-law, and friend of the husband, alleging misbehaviour, physical assault, and sexual advances upon her, pursuant to which the subject FIR came to be registered on 02.02.2022.
7. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet against all the petitioners was filed in May 2022 for offences under Sections 323/354/354B/34 of the IPC.
8. I am informed that a separate FIR No. 797/2021 at P.S. Burari was also registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against her husband and his family members under Sections 498A /406/34 of the IPC.
9. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement by way of a Deed of Settlement dated 16.08.2024, whereby all disputes were resolved. As per the settlement, the petitioners agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims in three installments. The parties agreed to quash the subject FIR, FIR No. 797/2021, and all pending litigation between the parties.
10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 22.05.2025, by mutual consent by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
11. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the allegations framed under Sections 354/354B of the IPC arose from a misunderstanding and were incidental to matrimonial disputes, devoid of any serious or lasting consequences.
12. The parties have affirmed before this Court that they have amicably resolved their disputes and no longer wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against one another.
13. In light of the foregoing, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. I am informed by learned counsel for the parties that a petition for quashing of FIR No. 797/2021 is pending before a coordinate Bench of this Court.
14. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that, in appropriate circumstances, High Courts may, in the exercise of their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), quash criminal proceedings, including those relating to non-compoundable offences, where a compromise has been reached between the accused and the complainant, provided that no overriding public interest would be adversely affected.
15. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.11 (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 futi
