Quashing of FIR Under Section 498A and 406 IPC on Compromise
An advocate seeking to quash a matrimonial FIR under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a compromise must navigate the bar on compounding these non-compoundable offences. The application is made under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is a power distinct from the compounding of offences under Section 320 of the Code. The core legal question is whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice when the parties have genuinely settled their matrimonial dispute.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC is not limited by Section 320 CrPC. In matrimonial disputes, courts weigh whether the settlement is voluntary and whether the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. The leading cases of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. establish the framework for this exercise, while Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others caution against a mechanical approach, especially where the offence has a serious impact on society.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
2014 INSC 217Supreme Court · 2014cited 15,432 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings. It held that s.482 CrPC power to quash is distinct from the s.320 power to compound and can be exercised even for non-compoundable offences…
- 2
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
2003 INSC 179Supreme Court · 2003cited 11,973 times
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings, FIR, or complaint in matrimonial disputes even for non-compoundable offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC.…
- 3
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.
2014 INSC 463Supreme Court · 2014cited 10,849 times
1. Section 41 CrPC is a mandatory checklist, not a formality: for offences carrying up to seven years, arrest requires (i) reasonable complaint/credible information/reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence and (ii)…
- 4
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
2022 INSC 690Supreme Court · 2022cited 9,001 times
Non-compliance with ss. 41 and 41A CrPC entitles an accused to bail as a right; these provisions are facets of Art. 21. The right to default bail under s. 167(2) is absolute and indefeasible and applies equally under…
- 5
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
2018 INSC 107Supreme Court · 2018cited 8,612 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant. The Court held that grant of bail is the general rule and incarceration is the exception. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised…
- 6
Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.
2006 INSC 407Supreme Court · 2006cited 8,302 times
A major individual has the right to marry anyone of their choice, including in an inter-caste marriage, and no offence is committed by such a couple or their supportive relatives. Criminal proceedings initiated due to…
- 7
M/S Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc
2025 INSC 804Supreme Court · 2025cited 8,155 times
A complainant under s. 138 NI Act is a "victim" within s. 2(wa) CrPC because the dishonour of a cheque causes direct economic loss and injury. Such a complainant-victim has a right to appeal against an order of…
- 8
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another
2012 INSC 419Supreme Court · 2012cited 7,921 times
The inherent power of the High Court under s. 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding under s. 320; s. 320 does not limit or restrict s. 482. The High Court may quash…
- 9
Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors.
1976 INSC 125Supreme Court · 1976cited 7,852 times
The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. The Magistrate's order issuing process was based on a reasoned consideration of the complaint and evidence, and was not passed mechanically. At the stage of Sections…
- 10
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others
2019 INSC 307Supreme Court · 2019cited 7,625 times
The High Court's orders quashing the FIRs are not sustainable. The High Court mechanically exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC without considering that the offences were non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC…
- 11
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr
2008 INSC 948Supreme Court · 2008cited 6,710 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that, on an overall view of the facts and keeping in mind the compromise decree and the principle in B.S.…
- 12
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
2017 INSC 1003Supreme Court · 2017cited 5,495 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR. The Court restated and systematised ten principles governing Section 482 jurisdiction, emphasising that the power to quash on…
Frequently asked questions
Can the High Court quash an FIR under Section 498A and 406 IPC based on a compromise between husband and wife?
Yes. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. held that the High Court can quash proceedings for non-compoundable matrimonial offences under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. This power is distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC, as affirmed in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another.
What factors does the court consider when deciding a Section 482 CrPC petition for quashing a matrimonial FIR on a settlement?
The court examines whether the settlement is genuine and voluntary, and if continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process or cause injustice. As outlined in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., the court weighs the nature of the offence, the stage of the case, and the amicable resolution of the matrimonial discord.
Is the power to quash on compromise automatic once the parties settle a matrimonial dispute?
No. The power must be exercised with caution. In Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., the Supreme Court laid down principles emphasizing that the power is not a routine exercise, particularly for serious offences. The High Court must be satisfied that the settlement is not a device to escape criminal liability.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on bail & criminal procedure
- Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 CrPC / 482 BNSS
- Regular Bail Under Section 439 CrPC / 483 BNSS
- Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC / Section 187 BNSS
- Bail in NDPS Cases (Commercial Quantity) and Section 37
- Bail in POCSO Cases with Alleged Consensual Relationship
- Cancellation of Bail Under Section 439(2) CrPC
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS
- Special Leave Petition Against Refusal of Bail