CRL.M.C. 4675/2025 $~28 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4675/2025 MANMEET SINGH NAGI AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. S.K. Manan, Mr. Shobhit Tyagi and Mr. Aniket, Advocate. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with Mr. Deepankar Kataria, Advocate with SI Shweta. Mr. C.S. Mann, Ms. Sherry Singh and Mr. Samarjeet Singh, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 08.07.2026 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 FIR No. 666/2023 dated 26.09.2023, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, District West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Notice was issued in the present petition vide order dated 17.07.2025. The petitioners are present before the Court and have been identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been identified by her 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 13/07/2026 at 15:27:42 CRL.M.C. 4675/2025 learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 are his sisters and brother-in-law. 5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 06.03.2011 in accordance with Sikh rites and ceremonies. One daughter was born out of the said wedlock on 19.10.2012. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since 13.08.2022. 6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on 11.04.2023, which subsequently culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR against the petitioners. 7. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed only against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, whereas petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 were placed in Column No. 12. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 entered into a settlement dated 08.07.2024 under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. In terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards the full and final settlement of all her claims. I am informed that the entire settled amount has already been paid to respondent No. 2 in compliance with the terms of the settlement. The settlement further provides that the custody of the minor child shall 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 13/07/2026 at 15:27:42 CRL.M.C. 4675/2025 remain with respondent No. 2, while petitioner No. 1 shall be entitled to the specified visitation rights as agreed between the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, passed by the Family Court on 05.12.2024, in HMA No. 3160/2024. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. It is well settled that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts may, in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), quash criminal proceedings involving even non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, provided that such exercise of jurisdiction does not adversely affect any overriding public interest. 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 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 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 13/07/2026 at 15:27:42 CRL.M.C. 4675/2025 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: 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 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 13/07/2026 at 15:27:42 CRL.M.C. 4675/2025 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 dispute emanates from a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court notes that respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed before the Court that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, out of her own free will, 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 13/07/2026 at 15:27:42 CRL.M.C. 4675/2025 and without any coercion or undue influence. In view thereof, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Rather, it would amount to an exercise in futility, unnecessarily burdening the criminal justice system and resulting in a waste of valuable judicial time and public resources. 15. As noted hereinabove, the settlement provides for the payment of a sum of Rs. 18,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards the full and final settlement of all her claims. I am informed that the entire settled amount has already been paid. In these circumstances, there remains no impediment to the grant of the relief sought. 16. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 666/2023 dated 26.09.2023, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, District West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly, stands disposed of. 19. Bail bonds, if any, stands discharged. 20. 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 shall continue to remain with respondent No. 2. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 8, 2026/SS/MK/ 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 13/07/2026 at 15:27:42