Matrimonial settlements are increasingly structured: part of the agreed amount changes hands at the first or second motion of divorce, and a final tranche is kept back until the criminal case is closed. In Sunny Verma & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi (CRL.M.C. 7321/2026, decided on 29 September 2026), the Delhi High Court worked with exactly such an arrangement — quashing an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC where the final instalment of the settlement was payable upon quashing itself.
The background
The parties married in July 2019, and a child was born in 2020. The marriage broke down, and in September 2021 the wife registered FIR No. 684/2021 alleging offences under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC; a chargesheet followed. Years into the litigation, the parties resolved their differences: a settlement dated 16 April 2026 recorded a total consideration of ₹15,50,000, with ₹7,00,000 kept payable upon the quashing of the FIR. The parties then obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in July 2026.
With the marriage dissolved and the settlement substantially performed, the husband and his family approached the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor to Section 482 CrPC — seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
What the Court held
Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 684/2021 along with the proceedings arising from it. The decision rests on the settled approach of the High Courts to matrimonial prosecutions that the parties themselves have put behind them.
Private dispute: the offences arose out of matrimonial discord between spouses, with no wider public interest in continuing the prosecution.
Genuine settlement: the terms were documented, acted upon through the mutual consent divorce, and confirmed before the Court.
Structured payment: the final tranche payable at quashing did not impede relief — it is a common and accepted feature of matrimonial settlements.
Child protected: the Court made clear that the settlement would not affect the rights of the minor child.
The decision reiterates that although offences like Section 498A are non-compoundable, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction permits it to end such proceedings where their continuation would keep alive a dispute the parties have resolved, and would burden the criminal justice system without realistic prospect of conviction.
The anatomy of a structured matrimonial settlement
The staging protects both sides: the wife is not asked to give up the prosecution before receiving the agreed amounts, and the husband is not asked to pay the entire consideration while the criminal case remains alive. Courts have accommodated this architecture by treating the pending tranche as part of the arrangement placed before them, frequently directing payment at or immediately after the hearing.
Points to keep in view
Three cautions emerge from practice. First, the complainant’s free and informed consent is indispensable — the court will ordinarily require her presence, in person or by video conferencing, to confirm the settlement. Second, the terms must be complete and unambiguous, ideally recorded in a mediation settlement or a deed that addresses every pending proceeding between the parties. Third, the rights of children stand apart: maintenance of a minor cannot be bargained away by the parents, and a settlement should provide for the child expressly rather than leave the question open.
Practice pointer: when a settlement contemplates payment at the time of quashing, parties should come to court ready to perform — with the instrument of payment available for the complainant to acknowledge — so that the order can record performance and close every strand of the dispute in one hearing.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a 498A FIR be quashed when the offences are non-compoundable?
Yes. Offences such as Section 498A IPC cannot be compounded before the trial court, but the High Court's inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) permits quashing of proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord where the parties have genuinely settled, the dispute is essentially private, and continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose.
Does a staged payment schedule prevent quashing?
Not in itself. Courts regularly accept settlements in which a final tranche is payable at the time of quashing — the quashing order typically records the payment or the undertaking to pay. What matters is that the settlement is voluntary, its terms are placed before the court, and the complainant confirms the compromise and consents to the FIR being quashed.
What happens to the child's rights after such a settlement?
A settlement between husband and wife binds them, not the child. In this case the Court noted that the compromise would not affect the rights of the minor child. A child's claim to maintenance and other entitlements survives the parents' settlement unless separately and lawfully provided for.
Is a mutual consent divorce necessary before seeking quashing?
No, but it strengthens the case. Where the parties have already dissolved the marriage by mutual consent and acted on the settlement, the court can see that the dispute has genuinely ended. Quashing petitions are, however, also allowed on the basis of settlement deeds and mediation reports where the divorce is yet to be completed.