High Court Quashes IPC Section 377 and Matrimonial Offence FIR Based on Amicable Settlement and Divorce

The Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were married on February 26, 2019, under Muslim rites

Due to temperamental differences, the parties separated, leading Respondent No. 2 to file FIR No. 331/2023 at P.S. Madhu Vihar alleging offences including cruelty and unnatural sex

During the proceedings, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated August 29, 2025, to resolve all disputes and part ways gracefully

They obtained a Shariat divorce (talaq) on September 30, 2025

The Respondent No. 2 received a total settlement of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards alimony and dower, and subsequently expressed 'no objection' to the quashing of the FIR

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash an FIR involving matrimonial and non-compoundable offences on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.

The Court primarily exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), which allows for the quashing of proceedings to secure the ends of justice

The court applied the principle that criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes, which are primarily private in nature and do not involve public interest, may be quashed if the parties have reached a comprehensive settlement and the complainant no longer wishes to prosecute

The Court observed that the parties had resolved all matrimonial, financial, and personal disputes through a signed MoU and a valid divorce under Shariat law

The Court noted that the Respondent No. 2 appeared in person, confirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement, and acknowledged receipt of the full settlement amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-

The Bench reasoned that since the dispute was essentially private and the complainant was no longer interested in pursuing the charges, continuing the criminal trial would serve no useful purpose and would be a futile exercise of judicial resources

Furthermore, the court took note of the death of the mother-in-law (one of the original accused) during the pendency of the matter

The holding is subject to the Petitioners depositing a cost of Rs. 20,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and furnishing the original settlement documents to the Trial Court. The petition was disposed of accordingly