In Sh Sooraj Saini and Ors v. State NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 3267/2026, decided on 14 October 2026, the Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 0412/2024 of PS Alipur — registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, corresponding to Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5) of the BNS — against a former husband and four of his relatives. The case is a textbook run of the settlement route in matrimonial prosecutions: terms recorded before a Family Court counselling cell, a mutual consent divorce, payment completed to the last rupee in open court, and quashing sought before any chargesheet was filed.
A short marriage and a shorter prosecution
The marriage was solemnised in February 2022; the parties separated by January 2023; and FIR No. 0412/2024 was registered at PS Alipur on 28 June 2024 on the wife\'s complaint under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC — provisions that now correspond to Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioners were the former husband and four of his relatives. No children were born of the marriage, and no chargesheet had been filed when the quashing petition was heard.
The counselling cell as the engine of settlement
What gives the case its practical interest is where the settlement was built: not in a private negotiation, but before the counselling cell attached to the Family Court, on 17 August 2024. The terms were concrete — Rs 2,45,000 in instalments, return of the complainant\'s articles, and her cooperation in quashing the FIR. By the time the matter reached Justice Sachin Datta, Rs 1.6 lakh stood paid, and the remaining Rs 85,000 was handed over by bank draft in the courtroom itself, with the complainant confirming receipt. A mutual consent divorce had been decreed on 20 March 2025. The complainant appeared, affirmed that the settlement was voluntary, and filed an affidavit of no objection.
The legal frame
Section 498A is non-compoundable, and the Court did not pretend otherwise. Its reasoning travelled the established path: the inherent power to quash is separate from, and unconstrained by, the statutory scheme of compounding. Drawing on Gian Singh (2012), Narinder Singh (2014) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013), the Court asked whether the dispute was private and matrimonial in character, whether the settlement was voluntary, and whether any public interest demanded the prosecution continue. The offences alleged did not belong to the category of serious crimes such as murder, rape or dacoity; the parties had divorced; the money had been paid in full; and the complainant\'s consent was unambiguous. On those facts, conviction was a remote prospect and continuation of the proceedings futile. The FIR and everything emanating from it were quashed as against all five petitioners.
Practice notes
- Record settlement terms before an institutional forum — a counselling cell, mediation centre or Lok Adalat — rather than on plain paper; the provenance of the settlement is itself evidence of voluntariness.
- Complete, or substantially complete, the payments before the quashing hearing; the balance handed over in court leaves the judge nothing to doubt.
- Bring the complainant to court. An affidavit helps; her presence and unequivocal statement help more.
- Where the investigation has not reached chargesheet, say so — the futility argument is at its strongest before the State has invested in a final report.
The order also carries a quiet message for complainants: a settlement reached through the Family Court\'s own machinery, honoured to the last instalment, is a reliable way to convert a matrimonial prosecution into a clean, final closure for both sides.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a 498A FIR be quashed when the offence is non-compoundable?
Yes. The High Court's inherent power to quash — exercised here under Article 226 read with Section 528 BNSS, the successor to Section 482 CrPC — is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences and is not limited by it. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Jitendra Raghuvanshi, the Court held that matrimonial disputes of an essentially private character, genuinely settled without coercion, may be quashed where continuing the prosecution would be futile.
What were the settlement terms?
Before the Family Court counselling cell on 17 August 2024, the husband agreed to pay Rs 2,45,000 in instalments and return the complainant's articles, and the complainant agreed to cooperate in quashing the FIR. Rs 1.6 lakh had been paid earlier; the balance of Rs 85,000 was handed over by bank draft in court, and the complainant confirmed receipt. A mutual consent divorce decree followed on 20 March 2025.
Did it matter that no chargesheet had been filed?
It strengthened the case for quashing. With the investigation yet to mature into a chargesheet, the parties divorced, the full settlement paid, and the complainant stating on affidavit and in person that she did not wish to pursue the FIR, the Court found the possibility of conviction remote and the continuation of proceedings an exercise in futility.
Does every settled matrimonial case get quashed?
No. Courts decline where the settlement appears coerced, where the allegations extend to serious offences such as grave physical violence, or where the complainant's consent is equivocal. The offence must remain within the band of private, matrimonial wrongs — the Court here expressly noted that the case did not involve crimes of the order of murder, rape or dacoity.