CRL.M.C. 8748/2025 $~37-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010980552025 + CRL.M.C. 8748/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36475/2025 MR. FARAZ HASHMI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Ms. Muskan Aggrawal, Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. ASI R Singh, PS Jamia Nagar. Respondent No. 2 through VC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”] (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 351/2022, dated 23.08.2022, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all 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. Respondent No. 2 is 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:46 CRL.M.C. 8748/2025 present through video conferencing and accepts notice. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is present in Court and is identified by his learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks exemption from the personal appearance of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are the parents of petitioner No. 1, on account of their advanced age and medical ailments. Respondent No. 2 is present through video conferencing and is identified by her learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. She has no objection to the exemption sought on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. 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. 6. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 30.12.2016 in accordance with Muslim rites. One female child was born from the wedlock on 08.10.2020. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since August 2020. 7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered against her husband and parents-in-law. 8. The parties have settled their disputes under the aegis of the Delhi Government Mediation & Conciliation Centre (Delhi Dispute Resolution Society), by way of a settlement dated 24.08.2022. Under the terms of the settlement, the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:46 CRL.M.C. 8748/2025 Mubarat on or before 30.09.2022. It was further agreed that the custody of their daughter would remain with respondent No. 2, while petitioner No. 1 would have visitation rights on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of every month and would be entitled to video-call the child once or twice a week. Insofar as the monetary consideration is concerned, petitioner No. 1 agreed to return a sum of Rs. 95,000/- to respondent No. 2. 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 was dissolved by way of Talaq-e-Mubarat, in accordance with Shariat law, vide order dated 28.08.2022. 11. In view of the aforesaid settlement and the dissolution of the marriage, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 12. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS), can quash criminal proceedings, even in respect of non-compoundable offences, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement, particularly where 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 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:46 CRL.M.C. 8748/2025 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 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 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:46 CRL.M.C. 8748/2025 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. 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 arise out of a matrimonial relationship between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, which has 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:46 CRL.M.C. 8748/2025 since culminated in the dissolution of their marriage. The parties have amicably resolved their disputes, and respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the possibility of the petitioners being convicted is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 15. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 95,000/- to respondent No. 2, which has already been received by her. There is, therefore, no impediment to granting the relief sought. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 351/2022, dated 23.08.2022, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18. The petition, alongwith any pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. 19. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order shall not, in any manner, affect the rights and interests of the minor child, whose custody shall remain with respondent No. 2. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 13, 2026 ‘B’/SD/ 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:46