CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 $~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4836/2026 NISHTHA ARORA @ NISHTHA MAKKAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Walia, Advocate. versus MANISH MAKKAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar & Mr. Sumesh Gandhi, Advocates. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 17.02.2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 2226/2021, dated 15.03.2024, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. By order dated 09.12.2025, the State was impleaded as respondent No. 2. 3. Issue notice. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Vikram Singh This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 11:09:25 CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 Panwar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. 4. The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by his learned counsel and the IO. 5. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 17.04.2009. One child was born from the wedlock on 14.05.2010. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since January 2017. 7. Respondent No. 2 filed the criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tis Hazari Courts, on 15.03.2024, against the petitioners, being his wife, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, for offences under Sections 199/415/420/463/468/471/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners were involved in using forged documents, including a Nepalese Citizenship ID Card. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 23.09.2025. They have, therefore, filed this petition for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 9. Respondent No. 2 states that the said criminal complaint arose out of a misunderstanding in connection with the matrimonial dispute. 10. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties have applied for first motion of divorce by mutual consent on 24.09.2025, and their joint statement was recorded. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 11:09:25 CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 11. The Settlement Agreement, as annexed to the petition, contains certain clauses imposing restrictions upon the rights of the minor child, which appears to be unreasonable and implausible, including the minor child being deprived of his right to seek maintenance, and his share in petitioner No.1’s estate, upon payment of a settlement amount. The agreement also does not contemplate any visitation rights to petitioner No. 1. In this regard, pursuant to order dated 12.02.2026, a joint additional affidavit dated 16.02.2026 has been filed, clarifying that no legal rights of the minor child stand curtailed by this settlement, and also with respect to visitation rights to petitioner No. 1. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR, on the basis of the Settlement Agreement, as modified to the extent indicated in the additional affidavit dated 16.02.2026. 12. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected. 13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has held as follows: “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 11:09:25 CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”2 Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 11:09:25 CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”4 14. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, and the parties have already moved the Family Court for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The first This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 11:09:25 CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 motion before the Family Court stands filed, and their joint statement has been recorded. The Settlement Agreement provides for quashing of the criminal proceedings at this stage. Respondent No. 2 has also stated that the present criminal complaint arose in context with the matrimonial dispute, which stands settled. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 15. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 in the name of their minor son in two instalments. The first installment contemplates payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by way of a demand draft pursuant to the quashing of the present case. The second tranche of payment will be made at the time of divorce. I am informed that the first instalment already stands deposited before the Family Court, Sirsa, Haryana. 16. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and Criminal Complaint No. 2226/2021, dated 15.03.2024, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement read with the joint additional affidavit dated 16.02.2026. 18. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. 4 Emphasis supplied. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 11:09:25 CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 19. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody remains with respondent No. 2. PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 17, 2026 ‘pv’/AD/ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 11:09:25