The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the principle that FIRs under non-compoundable offences like Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code can be quashed when parties amicably settle their disputes, even if the offences are not legally compoundable. This judgment underscores the judiciary's preference for reconciliation in matrimonial disputes, provided the settlement serves the ends of justice and does not undermine public interest.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Budh Ram & Ors., sought quashing of FIR No. 578/2016 registered at Police Station Nand Nagari, Delhi, for offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by the second respondent, the wife of petitioner no. 1, following marital discord. The parties were married in 2002 and have two daughters, one of whom is now married.
Procedural History
The timeline of the case is as follows:
- 2006: Complaint filed with Crime Against Women Cell, leading to registration of FIR on 09.07.2006.
- 2018: Parties began living together again.
- 26.03.2025: Settlement reached under the aegis of Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts.
- 27.01.2026: Present petition filed for quashing of FIR based on the compromise.
The Settlement Terms
The parties agreed to the following terms:
- Reconciliation: The parties would live together peacefully at their residence in Nand Nagari, Delhi.
- Maintenance: Petitioner no. 1 agreed to maintain his wife and minor daughter, covering household, medical, and educational expenses.
- Financial Settlement: Petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 50,000 to the wife for articles left at the matrimonial home. Rs. 20,000 was paid earlier, and the balance of Rs. 30,000 was paid in court.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether an FIR under non-compoundable offences like Sections 498-A and 406 IPC could be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), given the parties' compromise and their decision to reconcile.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that:
- The parties had amicably settled their disputes and were living together since 2018.
- Continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, as the wife had no objection to quashing the FIR.
- The settlement was reached under the supervision of the Delhi Mediation Centre, ensuring its genuineness.
For the Respondent/State
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the quashing of the FIR, given the compromise between the parties and the wife's statement in court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied on the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, emphasizing the following principles:
-
Reconciliation Over Litigation: The Court noted that the parties had been living together since 2018 and had settled their disputes amicably. Continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose, especially when the complainant had no intention of pursuing the matter further.
-
Public Interest vs. Private Settlement: While Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable offences, the Court observed that quashing an FIR based on a genuine compromise does not undermine public interest when the parties have reconciled. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) can be invoked to quash proceedings in cases involving matrimonial disputes, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
-
Mediation as a Tool for Resolution: The Court highlighted the role of mediation in resolving matrimonial disputes, noting that the settlement was reached under the supervision of the Delhi Mediation Centre. This underscores the importance of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in reducing the burden on courts and fostering amicable settlements.
"Keeping in mind the terms of settlement and the fact that parties are living together since 2018, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose."
The Verdict
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 578/2016 along with all consequential proceedings. The Court held that quashing of FIR under non-compoundable offences is permissible when parties reconcile and the settlement serves the ends of justice, exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Quashing FIRs Based on Compromise
The judgment reinforces the principle that courts can quash FIRs under non-compoundable offences when parties settle their disputes amicably. Practitioners should:
- Highlight the genuineness of the compromise and the parties' willingness to reconcile.
- Emphasize the role of mediation or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in reaching the settlement.
- Argue that continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially when the complainant does not wish to pursue the matter.
Limits of Quashing Powers
While the Court has broad powers under Section 528 BNSS, practitioners must note that:
- The compromise must be voluntary and genuine, without coercion or undue influence.
- The offences involved should not be heinous or against public interest, such as those involving serious violence or economic offences affecting a large number of people.
- The Court will scrutinize the terms of the settlement to ensure they are fair and just, particularly in cases involving vulnerable parties like women or children.
Role of Mediation in Criminal Cases
This judgment underscores the growing importance of mediation in criminal cases, particularly in matrimonial disputes. Practitioners should:
- Encourage clients to explore mediation before pursuing litigation.
- Ensure settlements reached through mediation are documented and presented to the Court for consideration.
- Advocate for the use of mediation centres, as their involvement lends credibility to the settlement process.
