Delhi High Court Quashes 498A FIR After Couple Reconciles: “No Useful Purpose Will Be Served by Continuing the Proceedings” — FIR Quashed in View of Matrimonial Settlement and Resumed Cohabitation

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 0228/2021 registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC along with the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings, following an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court observed that “no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR” since the dispute had been resolved and the complainant had no objection to the quashing.

Facts

The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 0228/2021 dated 30.04.2021. The FIR was registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC by the wife against her husband (Petitioner No. 1) and his family members.

The couple was married on 30.06.2001 as per Hindu rites and had three children. Due to temperamental differences, they started living separately under the same roof. The wife subsequently filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and lodged the present FIR. The charge sheet was later filed under Sections 498A/406/509/323/34 IPC.

Issues

Whether the FIR and the consequential proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 based on a settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners submitted that the disputes between the parties had been amicably resolved and a Settlement Deed/MoU dated 24.03.2025 was executed. Pursuant to this settlement, the couple resumed cohabitation in the matrimonial home, and all complaints and litigations between them had been withdrawn.

They prayed for the quashing of FIR No. 0228/2021 and all proceedings arising therefrom, in light of the mutual understanding and reconciliation.

Respondent’s Arguments

The complainant (Respondent No. 2) confirmed the settlement and stated in her recorded statement that it was entered into voluntarily, without pressure or coercion. She affirmed that she was now residing peacefully with her husband and had no objection to the FIR and all related proceedings being quashed.

She further undertook not to institute any future civil or criminal proceedings regarding the same subject matter and agreed to abide by the terms of the settlement.

Analysis of the Law

The Court considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein it was held that the High Court has the power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings in cases where parties have settled their disputes, provided that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process and not in the interest of justice.

Precedent Analysis

Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated:

“The High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings… and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.”

Court’s Reasoning

The Court noted that both parties were present before it and affirmed their voluntary reconciliation and settlement. The complainant, with full awareness of the consequences, agreed to cooperate in the quashing process and withdraw any remaining disputes.

Considering the nature of the dispute and the fact that the couple had resumed cohabitation, the Court found no reason to continue the criminal case.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0228/2021, dated 30.04.2021, registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC along with the charge sheet and all consequential proceedings.

Pending applications were also disposed of.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the principle that matrimonial disputes, particularly those involving non-compoundable offences like Section 498A IPC, may be quashed under the BNSS when the parties amicably resolve their differences. It upholds the view that judicial intervention should aim to promote family reconciliation when feasible and legally justifiable.

Also Read – Supreme Court Holds Probation of Offenders Act and Sentence Reduction Under Food Safety and Standards Act Not Applicable to Convictions Under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Between 1976–2006 — Converts Jail Term to Fine on Grounds of Judicial Comity Despite Legislative Bar