Matrimonial FIR quashed under BNSS after amicable settlement and complainant’s consent.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of FIR No. 316/2024, registered at P.S. Kalindi Kunj under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it

Respondent No. 2 had complained of dowry-related physical and mental harassment by the petitioners.

The parties later settled their disputes through a written settlement dated 18 August 2025 during proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

They subsequently obtained a divorce by mutual consent/Talaq-E-Mubarat; petitioner No. 1 paid the agreed settlement amount of ₹6,75,000 and returned the household articles. The parties agreed that their minor daughter would remain in respondent No. 2’s custody

Respondent No. 2 confirmed the settlement was voluntary, that she had received the agreed amount and articles, and that she had no objection to quashing the FIR

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings in view of the parties’ settlement

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose where the complainant had settled the dispute and did not wish to pursue the charges

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

In exercising that power, the Court considered that the dispute was primarily private, did not involve public interest, and had been amicably resolved; the complainant’s position and the circumstances of the settlement were relevant to whether criminal proceedings should continue

The FIR invoked Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC

The Court found that the settlement had been implemented: the agreed amount and household articles had been delivered, the parties’ marriage had ended, and the child’s custody had been agreed

Respondent No. 2 appeared in person, confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, and expressly consented to quashing

Given the private nature of the dispute, the completed settlement, and the complainant’s unwillingness to press the charges, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and that quashing was appropriate to secure the ends of justice

It quashed FIR No. 316/2024, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings

The parties’ original affidavits were directed to be submitted to the Trial Court and the concerned SHO/IO within four weeks

The petition and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly