After Mutual Divorce And Full ₹20 Lakh Settlement, Delhi HC Quashes 498A/406 FIR Against Husband And Co-Accused

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings arising from the matrimonial dispute, in light of the parties’ settlement.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition under Section 528 BNSS and quashed FIR No. 0069/2024, registered at P.S. Hauz Qazi under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings.

It also directed

The pending application was also disposed of.

01Facts

Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 married on 15 November 2021, had no children, and began living separately on 21 January 2023.

pp. 1–2

On Respondent No. 2’s complaint alleging dowry demands, deception, assault, abuse, and non-return of stridhan, FIR No. 0069/2024 was registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC; a charge sheet was subsequently filed.

pp. 1–2

The parties settled their disputes at the Delhi Mediation Centre on 19 May 2026. The domestic-violence proceedings were withdrawn, and a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed on 8 September 2026.

pp. 9–10

The settlement amount of ₹20,00,000 was paid, including a bank draft for ₹11,00,000 handed over during the hearing; Respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt and sought to bring the FIR proceedings to an end.

pp. 9–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings arising from the matrimonial dispute, in light of the parties’ settlement.

pp. 1, 10–11

ii.2. Whether the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the settlement made continuation of the criminal proceedings unnecessary or futile.

pp. 10–11

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any court.

pp. 1, 10–11

Applying Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that quashing may be appropriate where the dispute has an overwhelmingly private or civil character, including disputes arising from matrimonial relationships, and the parties have resolved their differences.

pp. 10–11

The Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the possibility of conviction, and whether continuation of the proceedings would cause oppression or injustice; serious offences with substantial societal impact are not ordinarily quashed merely on compromise.

pp. 10–11

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court treated the dispute as purely matrimonial and noted that the marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent, the related proceedings had been withdrawn or concluded, and the entire settlement amount had been paid.

p. 10

Respondent No. 2 confirmed the settlement and her desire not to pursue the FIR. In these circumstances, the Court considered the likelihood of the proceedings serving a useful purpose to be remote and their continuation futile.

pp. 10–11

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, it found no impediment to quashing the proceedings.

pp. 10–11

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition under Section 528 BNSS and quashed FIR No. 0069/2024, registered at P.S. Hauz Qazi under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings.

p. 11

The pending application was also disposed of.

p. 11

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF