CRL.M.C. 8066/2025 $~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010892892025 + CRL.M.C. 8066/2025 & CRL.M.A. 33679/2025 CHANDER PRAKASH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Adhiraj Bhandari, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate. SI Satish Chand Ms. Anukriti Trivedi, Advocate for R2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 14.08.2026 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. 407/2022, dated 21.10.2022, registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, 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. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Anukriti Trivedi, 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 18/08/2026 at 11:22:46 CRL.M.C. 8066/2025 3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 4. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the father of petitioner No.1. 5. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 24.11.2017. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 25.05.2021. 6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners. 7. A chargesheet has been filed in these proceedings against the petitioners. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties vide Consent Terms dated 26.06.2023 and Supplemental Consent Terms dated 27.07.2023. 9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 10. By order dated 01.04.2026, the personal presence of the parties was exempted, and it was recorded as follows: “2. The petitioners are present in person, while respondent No. 2 appears through video conference. All the parties have been duly identified by their respective counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer, and they affirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the consent terms dated 26.06.2023 and supplemental consent terms dated 27.07.2023 have 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 18/08/2026 at 11:22:46 CRL.M.C. 8066/2025 substantially been implemented. However, the second motion in the proceedings for dissolution of marriage still remain pending. 4. In this view of the matter, list on 12.05.2026. 5. The decree of divorce, if any, be placed on record before the next date of hearing. The personal presence of the parties is dispensed with for the present.” 11. The second motion proceedings have since concluded and the marriage between the parties has since dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court on 23.05.2026. A copy of the same has been placed on record. 12. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 13. 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. 14. 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 18/08/2026 at 11:22:46 CRL.M.C. 8066/2025 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 18/08/2026 at 11:22:46 CRL.M.C. 8066/2025 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 15. 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 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 18/08/2026 at 11:22:46 CRL.M.C. 8066/2025 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. 16. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and return of certain jewellery articles to respondent No. 2. I am informed that the settlement agreement has been implemented in its entirety. There is therefore no impediment in granting the relief sought. 17. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 407/2022, dated 21.10.2022, registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 18. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 14, 2026 SS/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 18/08/2026 at 11:22:46