CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 $~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 SHRI SARABJIT SINGH & ANR. …..Petitioners Through: Mr. Anuuj Aggarwall, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. …..Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with Mr. Samar Pratap, Advocate, and SI Sourabh Malik. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 27.02.2026 1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of FIR No. 1252/2014 dated 24.12.2014 registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Outer District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 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 10/03/2026 at 10:42:00 CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. 5. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 06.10.2013 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. One female child was from the wedlock on 30.06.2014. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties started living separately since 2014. 6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Outer District, alleging cruelty and dowry-related harassment against petitioner No. 1 and his mother, based on which the present FIR was registered on 24.12.2014. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed on 25.11.2017 and the matter is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.09.2025, whereby all disputes between them have been amicably settled. As per the terms of settlement, petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.17,00,000/- to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims, including stridhan, past, present and future maintenance, and permanent alimony for herself and the minor child. 8. It was further agreed that the custody of the minor child shall remain with respondent No. 2, and petitioner No. 1 shall not claim visitation or permanent custody in the future. The parties have also agreed 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 10/03/2026 at 10:42:00 CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 that the ex parte decree of divorce passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 in MC No. 2879/2015 by the Family Court, Bangalore, on 25.08.2016 shall be treated as final and binding, and respondent No. 2 shall not challenge the same. 9. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are present in Court and have been identified by their respective counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. 10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 11. 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. 12. 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 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 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 10/03/2026 at 10:42:00 CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 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: 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. 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 10/03/2026 at 10:42:00 CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 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 13. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. 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 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 10/03/2026 at 10:42:00 CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 conviction, and their continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 14. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 confirms that she has received Rs. 7,00,000/- till date. The balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No.2 in Court today by way of Demand Draft. There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought. 15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 1252/2014 dated 24.12.2014 registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Outer District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/420/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 16. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 17. 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 27, 2026 Sh/JM 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 10/03/2026 at 10:42:00