High Court may quash matrimonial-offence proceedings under Section 528 BNSS following comprehensive settlement between spouses.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 198/2023, dated 17 June 2023, registered at Police Station New Friends Colony under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 20 December 2020 and had one male child. Owing to temperamental differences, they began living separately, following which respondent No. 2 lodged the complaint resulting in registration of the FIR.

A charge-sheet had been filed, although charges had not yet been framed.

The parties subsequently entered into a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding dated 26 July 2025 and agreed to part ways.

Respondent No. 2 confirmed the settlement before the Court, stated that the marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent on 31 July 2026, and affirmed that the child would remain in her custody while the petitioners would have visitation rights.

Under the settlement, she agreed to accept ₹20,00,000 as full and final settlement towards istridhan, alimony and past, present and future maintenance; ₹10,00,000 had already been received and the balance ₹10,00,000 had been deposited before the Trial Court.

She stated that the settlement was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing of the FIR.

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 Sanhita, prevent abuse of the process of court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The Court further applied the principle that criminal proceedings arising from predominantly private and 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 no overriding public interest is involved.

The underlying FIR alleged offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 34 IPC.

The Court found that the dispute was primarily matrimonial and private in character, and that the parties had entered into a comprehensive settlement resolving their disputes, including divorce, custody and visitation arrangements, and monetary claims relating to istridhan, alimony and maintenance.

Respondent No. 2 appeared in person, was identified by her counsel and the Investigating Officer, confirmed the settlement, and expressly stated that it had been entered into voluntarily and without coercion.

Since the marriage had already been dissolved by mutual consent and the complainant did not wish to pursue the allegations, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings 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.

The original affidavits and the Memorandum of Understanding were directed to be filed before the Trial Court within two weeks so that they could form part of the Trial Court record.

Respondent No. 2 was permitted to collect the balance settlement amount of ₹10,00,000 deposited before the Trial Court.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.