After Wife Says Section 354 Allegation Arose From Misunderstanding, Delhi HC Quashes Matrimonial FIR Following ₹20 Lakh Settlement

The petitioners sought, under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash FIR No. 0147/2025, registered at P.S. Farsh Bazar under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 354 and 34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it

The parties had entered into a mediated settlement under which ₹20,00,000 was payable to respondent no. 2; the amount had been paid in full, and their marriage had been dissolved by mutual-consent decree

Respondent no. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and stated that she had no objection to quashing the FIR

Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS were invoked as the basis for the quashing petition.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which recognises that the High Court’s inherent quashing power is distinct from statutory compounding and may be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; matrimonial and other predominantly private disputes may be quashed where the parties have fully settled and conviction is remote, subject to due regard for the nature and gravity of the offence.

It also applied Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, which directs courts to consider whether the dispute is predominantly civil or matrimonial, whether the parties have resolved it, and whether conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

The FIR invoked Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 354 and 34 IPC; the Court noted that the Section 354 allegation was serious and non-compoundable.

The Court treated the allegations under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC as arising from the matrimonial relationship and as private in nature; the parties had resolved their disputes, the settlement amount was paid, and the marriage had been dissolved.

Although it recognised the seriousness and non-compoundability of the Section 354 allegation, it considered that allegation part of the same complaint and matrimonial discord, rather than an independent incident. Respondent no. 2 had stated that the allegation arose from a misunderstanding and that she did not wish to pursue the case against any petitioner.

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that conviction was remote and bleak and that continuing the prosecution would be unwarranted.

The order was subject to payment of ₹25,000 in costs to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, with proof of deposit to be filed in the Registry.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.