Matrimonial criminal proceedings may be quashed after divorce and full settlement.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 0057/2024, registered at PS Nihal Vihar under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, and the consequential proceedings, relying on a settlement dated 5 February 2026.

Petitioner No. 1 was the complainant’s husband; the remaining petitioners were his relatives.

The parties’ marriage had been dissolved by a decree of divorce, and the complainant confirmed receipt of the full settlement amount of ₹15,00,000.

She also stated that she had entered into the settlement voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence.

The Court treated the criminal writ petition as one under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether the settlement, full payment of the agreed amount and dissolution of the marriage justified quashing the proceedings in the interests of justice.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to give effect to an order under the Sanhita, prevent abuse of the process of court, or secure the ends of justice.

Applying the principles governing the corresponding power under Section 482 CrPC, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, permits quashing of non-compoundable offences where the dispute is predominantly private or matrimonial, the parties have settled their disputes, and continuation of the proceedings would be futile or defeat the ends of justice; serious offences affecting society are not ordinarily quashed merely on settlement.

The Court also relied on Navneesh Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1680, which observed that, following divorce and settlement of matrimonial disputes, continuing a prosecution arising from the past relationship may amount to abuse of process.

The FIR concerned matrimonial offences, and the parties had settled their disputes. The complainant confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she had received the entire ₹15,00,000; the marriage had also been dissolved by decree.

In light of those circumstances and the principles in Gian Singh and Navneesh Aggarwal, the Court concluded that there was no impediment to quashing the proceedings.

The parties undertook to abide by the settlement terms, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.