HEADNOTE
Monu & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Jurisdiction: Criminal Jurisdiction – Petition under Section 528 BNSS
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Date of Judgment: December 11, 2025
Citation: CRL.M.C. 8847/2025 (Delhi High Court)
Laws / Sections Involved:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 406, 377, 354, 506, 509, 34;
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 4;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528
Keywords: FIR quashing, matrimonial dispute, settlement quash, Section 498A IPC, Section 377 IPC, divorce by mutual consent
Summary
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for serious matrimonial offences, including Sections 498A, 406, 377, and 354 IPC, after finding that the parties had amicably settled all disputes and obtained a divorce by mutual consent. The Court noted that the complainant-wife appeared in person, confirmed voluntary settlement without coercion, and acknowledged receipt of the entire settlement amount of ₹7 lakh. Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial discord may be quashed to secure the ends of justice, the Court held that continuation of prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, FIR No. 0015/2023 and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed.
Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed FIR No. 0015/2023 dated 1 March 2023, registered at PS Crime (Women) Cell, Nanak Pura, along with all consequential proceedings. The Court held that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice, given the complete and voluntary settlement between the parties.
Facts
Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were married on 30 November 2020 according to Hindu rites. No child was born from the wedlock, and the parties began living separately from August 2022 due to temperamental differences. In March 2023, the wife lodged an FIR alleging dowry harassment, criminal breach of trust, sexual offences, criminal intimidation, and outraging of modesty. A chargesheet was later filed, also invoking provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During pendency of proceedings, the parties undertook mediation at Dwarka Courts and arrived at a comprehensive settlement dated 5 July 2025.
Issues
Whether criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable matrimonial offences could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties.
Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners submitted that all disputes had been fully resolved through mediation, that the parties had already obtained divorce by mutual consent on 15 November 2025, and that the entire settlement amount of ₹7 lakh had been paid. It was argued that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Respondent’s arguments
The complainant-wife appeared in person and confirmed that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without force or coercion, and that she had received the full settlement amount. She expressly stated that she had no objection to quashing of the FIR. The State also raised no objection in view of the settlement.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the scope of inherent and extraordinary powers to quash criminal proceedings and reiterated that while serious offences generally should not be quashed, matrimonial disputes stand on a different footing. Where the dispute is essentially private in nature and the parties have settled, the High Court may intervene to prevent abuse of process and to promote peaceful resolution.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on binding Supreme Court precedents including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, and Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka, which recognise the permissibility of quashing criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord upon genuine settlement.
Court’s reasoning
Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that both parties were physically present, duly identified by counsel and the Investigating Officer. The complainant unequivocally supported quashing of proceedings. Given that the marriage had already been dissolved and financial settlement fully complied with, the Court found that no societal interest would be served by continuing the prosecution.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the case was fit for exercise of quashing powers and allowed the petition, bringing all criminal proceedings between the parties to an end.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the judicial approach that criminal proceedings rooted in matrimonial disputes may be quashed even where non-compoundable offences are involved, provided the settlement is genuine, voluntary, and complete. It strengthens mediation-driven resolution of family disputes and reduces prolonged criminal litigation after marital ties have been legally severed.
Case law references
• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
Holding: High Courts may quash criminal proceedings involving private disputes to secure ends of justice.
Application: Applied to matrimonial settlement.
• B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675
Holding: FIRs under Section 498A IPC can be quashed after settlement.
Application: Relied upon to allow quashing.
• Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58
Holding: Matrimonial disputes deserve quietus once parties settle.
Application: Followed.
FAQs
Q1. Can FIRs involving Section 498A and 377 IPC be quashed after settlement?
Yes, in matrimonial disputes, courts may quash such FIRs if the settlement is genuine and voluntary.
Q2. Did the complainant consent to quashing in this case?
Yes. The complainant appeared in person and expressly consented.
Q3. Was the marriage already dissolved?
Yes. The parties obtained divorce by mutual consent prior to quashing.