CRL.M.C. 9231/2025 $~32 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011057832025 + CRL.M.C. 9231/2025 & CRL.M.A. 38550/2025 CRL.M.A. 11023/2026 SAGAR GEHLOT & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tanya Agarwal & Mr. Vishal Maurya, Advocates alongwith Petitioners in Person. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP Mr. Hanish Saharawat, Advocate for R-2 & 3 alongwith R-2 & 3. [M: 9911103142] CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 21.08.2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present 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. 55/2021, dated 11.04.2021, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Baghpat under Sections 498A/323/504/313/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2. At the outset, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the proceedings pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Baghpat, were transferred to the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, by the 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 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 CRL.M.C. 9231/2025 Supreme Court vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 173/2022, on the ground that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were residing in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Ms. Aggarwal has handed over a copy of the aforesaid order, which is taken on record. 3. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Hanish Saharawat accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 5. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner No. 3 is his grandmother. Respondent No. 2 is the father of respondent No. 3. 7. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 were married on 29.04.2018 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. No child was born from the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since 28.01.2021. 8. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is the father of respondent No. 3. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled all their disputes by way of a Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated 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 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 CRL.M.C. 9231/2025 09.06.2025. Under the terms of the MoU, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.66,00,000/- to respondent No. 3 towards full and final settlement of all claims, in three equal instalments of Rs.22,00,000/- each, payable at the stages of recording of statements in the First Motion and Second Motion petitions under Sections 13-B(1) and 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and upon quashing of the impugned FIR. 10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. 11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Family Court. 12. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 13. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably settled their disputes, particularly where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and continuation of the proceedings would not serve any overriding public interest. 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 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 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 CRL.M.C. 9231/2025 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 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 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 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 CRL.M.C. 9231/2025 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. 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 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 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 CRL.M.C. 9231/2025 15. In the present case, the proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The matrimonial relationship has since culminated in a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and the parties have resolved their disputes in terms of the MoU dated 09.06.2025. Respondent No. 2 has also affirmed before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. In these circumstances, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 16. The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs.66,00,000/- to respondent No. 3, out of which Rs.44,00,000/- has already been received by her. The balance amount of Rs.22,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 3 in Court today. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought in the present petition. 17. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 55/2021, dated 11.04.2021, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Baghpat under Sections 498A/323/504/313/307 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 21, 2026 ‘pv’/SD/ 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 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05