01Facts
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.
p. 1 · ¶ 1The 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.
p. 2 · ¶ 2–3The chargesheet had been filed and the criminal case was at the stage of prosecution evidence.
p. 2 · ¶ 4During mediation, the parties resolved their disputes and agreed to part ways pursuant to a Mediation Settlement Order dated 21 August 2025.
p. 2 · ¶ 5Under 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.
p. 2 · ¶ 9Custody 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.
p. 2 · ¶ 9The parties had also obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 20 May 2026.
p. 3 · ¶ 10Respondent 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 8, 1102Issues
i.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.
p. 3 · ¶ 11–13ii.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.
p. 3 · ¶ 1203Law Applied
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.
p. 3 · ¶ 13The 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 12The FIR allegations were under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
p. 1 · ¶ 1Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406Section 34
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
04Reasoning
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.
p. 2 · ¶ 5, 9Respondent 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.
p. 2 · ¶ 9 · p. 3 · ¶ 8, 11In 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 10–12It therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice.
p. 3 · ¶ 1305Holding
The Court answered the issues in favour of the petitioner and held that the settled matrimonial dispute warranted exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
p. 3 · ¶ 14FIR 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 14The 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 15The petition was accordingly disposed of.
p. 4 · ¶ 16Original Court PDF
Vikram SinghvsState (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) Through Sho Gokulpuri Delhi & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
