Inherent powers permit quashing of settled matrimonial offences where continuation serves no useful purpose.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were married on 10 April 2006 under Muslim rites and had a child born on 3 October 2007.

They began living separately on 23 April 2008, following which Respondent No. 2’s complaint before the CAW Cell resulted in registration of FIR No. 106/2010 at Police Station Mangolpuri under Sections 498A/406 IPC.

A charge-sheet was filed under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and proceedings were pending before the learned JMFC (Mahila Court)-02, North, Delhi, in CR. Case No. 5285320/2016.

During the proceedings, the parties entered into a Mediation Settlement Deed dated 22 April 2026.

Their marriage had already been dissolved through a Talaq Nama and a subsequent decree of divorce, and both parties had remarried.

Under the settlement, Respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt of her istridhan, retained custody of the child, and agreed to withdraw the criminal case.

The parties appeared personally before the Court, and Respondent No. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing of the FIR.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose where the dispute is predominantly private, the complainant does not wish to pursue the allegations, and the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.

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

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 498A/406 IPC, with the charge-sheet additionally invoking Section 34 IPC.

The governing principle applied was that criminal proceedings arising from a predominantly private dispute may be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction when the parties have genuinely and voluntarily settled the matter, the complainant has no objection, and continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose or public interest.

The Court verified the settlement directly because both parties were present and identified by their counsel and the Investigating Officer.

Respondent No. 2 expressly confirmed that the compromise was free from force, fear, or coercion, that her istridhan had been returned, and that she did not wish to pursue the FIR.

Since the marriage had already ended, both parties had remarried, and the underlying matrimonial dispute had been resolved through mediation, the Court treated the controversy as essentially private and found no overriding public interest requiring continuation of the prosecution.

Applying Section 528 BNSS, the Court concluded that quashing the proceedings was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

FIR No. 106/2010 dated 5 March 2010, registered at Police Station Mangolpuri under Sections 498/406 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.

The parties were directed to submit the original affidavits to the learned Trial Court and to the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer within four weeks so that they could form part of the trial record.