CRL.M.C. 9248/2025 $~69-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011061092025 + CRL.M.C. 9248/2025 MANOJ AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate. versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. ASI Vikram Singh, PS-Karawal Nagar. Respondent No. 2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 01.09.2026 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. 46/2021, dated 02.02.2021, registered at Police Station Karawal Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 appears in person and states that she does not want assistance of counsel. 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 07/09/2026 at 12:48:56 CRL.M.C. 9248/2025 3. The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and is identified by the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the brother of petitioner No. 1. 6. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 30.06.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and one daughter was born from the wedlock on 30.08.2013. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 01.01.2019. 7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell against her husband, mother-in-law, and her brother-in-law, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered. 8. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners herein. During the pendency of the proceedings, the mother-in-law passed away on 30.05.2023, and the proceedings against her thus stand abated. A death certificate dated 30.06.2023 has been annexed to the petition. 9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have since settled their disputes and have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 26.08.2025. The settlement contemplates reconciliation between the parties, who have resumed cohabitation as husband and wife, alongwith their child, for the last four years, and are now expecting another child. 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 07/09/2026 at 12:48:56 CRL.M.C. 9248/2025 10. The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 11. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. 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. 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 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, 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 07/09/2026 at 12:48:56 CRL.M.C. 9248/2025 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. 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. 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 07/09/2026 at 12:48:56 CRL.M.C. 9248/2025 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 arises out of a matrimonial relationship which has since been amicably resolved. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have reconciled and have been residing together for the last four years. They have a child from the wedlock and, following their reconciliation, respondent No. 2 is presently expecting another child. The continuation of the criminal proceedings, in these circumstances, would be contrary to the interests of the parties and may disrupt the matrimonial harmony and family life that they have since restored. It would also be in the interest of the welfare and well-being of both children that the parties are permitted to move forward with their matrimonial relationship without the continuing burden of the present criminal proceedings. 15. Respondent No. 2 has unequivocally stated before this Court that 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 07/09/2026 at 12:48:56 CRL.M.C. 9248/2025 the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and of her own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. In view of the settlement and the subsequent reconciliation between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to serve any meaningful purpose or result in a fruitful prosecution. Instead, it would subject the parties to further litigation, unnecessarily burden the criminal justice system and consume valuable judicial resources, without advancing the ends of justice. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 46/2021, dated 02.02.2021, registered at Police Station Karawal Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising 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. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 “B”/SM/ 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 07/09/2026 at 12:48:56