Non-compoundable matrimonial offences may be quashed when the parties voluntarily settle all disputes.

Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 355/2024 at PS Jagat Puri against her husband and his family members under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC.

The spouses settled their matrimonial dispute under a Settlement Deed dated 7 January 2026, under which the husband agreed to pay ₹7,00,000 towards the respondent’s claims.

The amounts due at the first and second divorce motions had been paid, and the remaining ₹2,00,000 was paid before the Court.

The parties divorced by mutual consent.

Respondent No. 2 confirmed that she had entered the settlement voluntarily and did not wish to pursue the FIR.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings, including the non-compoundable offence under Section 498A IPC, in view of the parties’ matrimonial settlement?

2. Whether the settlement was voluntary and sufficiently resolved the parties’ dispute to justify quashing the proceedings?

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of court, including proceedings for non-compoundable offences where appropriate.

Section 406 IPC is compoundable, whereas Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held that proceedings involving matrimonial or family disputes may be quashed after settlement where continuation would be futile and quashing would secure the ends of justice, subject to the nature and circumstances of the offence.

In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court stated that the power must be exercised sparingly, with regard to the ends of justice, the civil or matrimonial character of the dispute, and whether the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

The Court treated the case as a matrimonial dispute resolved by a settlement, rather than an offence implicating an overriding public interest.

The settlement provided for payment of ₹7,00,000, all of which had been paid, and the parties had obtained a divorce by mutual consent.

Having interacted with respondent No. 2, the Court accepted her confirmation that the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to continue the proceedings.

Applying Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court concluded that quashing was appropriate notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of Section 498A IPC.

The parties remain bound by the Settlement Deed, and the petition was disposed of.