Genuine matrimonial settlement warrants quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC under Section 528 BNSS.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0238/2016, registered at Police Station Gokulpuri under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were married on 15 February 2013 and had a son; owing to matrimonial differences, they began living separately, following which Respondent No. 2 lodged the complaint resulting in registration of the FIR.

The chargesheet had been filed and the criminal case was at the stage of prosecution evidence.

During mediation, the parties resolved their disputes and agreed to part ways pursuant to a Mediation Settlement Order dated 21 August 2025.

Under the settlement, Respondent No. 2 agreed to accept ₹7,70,000 as full and final settlement towards istridhan, alimony and maintenance; ₹4,70,000 had already been received and an FDR of ₹3,00,000 in the name of the parties’ son was handed over to her.

Custody of the son was to remain with Respondent No. 2, without visitation rights to the petitioner, while the child retained liberty to seek appropriate legal relief concerning education, maintenance and upbringing.

The parties had also obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 20 May 2026.

Respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court, confirmed the settlement as voluntary and without coercion, and stated that she had no objection to quashing of the FIR.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute that had been amicably settled between the parties.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose when the complainant had voluntarily settled the dispute, did not wish to pursue the allegations, and the dispute was essentially private in nature.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary to give effect to an order under the BNSS, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice.

The Court further applied the principle that criminal proceedings arising out of predominantly private or matrimonial disputes may be quashed on the basis of a genuine and voluntary settlement where continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would not involve any overriding public interest.

The FIR allegations were under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court found that the dispute was matrimonial and essentially private, and that the parties had comprehensively resolved their financial, matrimonial and custody-related issues through mediation.

Respondent No. 2 personally appeared, was identified by her counsel and the investigating officer, confirmed the settlement, acknowledged receipt of the agreed amount and FDR, and expressly stated that the settlement was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing the FIR.

In view of the settlement, the mutual-consent divorce, and the complainant’s unwillingness to press the criminal charges, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would not advance any public interest.

It therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice.

FIR No. 0238/2016 dated 27 March 2016, registered at Police Station Gokulpuri under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed.

The parties’ original affidavits were directed to be submitted before the Trial Court within four weeks so that they could form part of the trial court record.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.