CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 $~110-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010323282025 + CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 & CRL.M.A. 16047/2026 KUNAL CHOKSI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shubham Kulshreshtha, Mr. Satya Rath, Advocates, alongwith Petitioner on VC. versus STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Satyam Pandey. R2 on VC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 09.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 28005/2026 (for quashing on settlement) 1. This application has been filed jointly by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 seeking quashing of FIR No. 137/2022, dated 15.07.2022, registered at Police Station Defence Colony, District South, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement. 2. Although the captioned petition has been filed for quashing of the subject FIR on merits, subsequently the parties have entered into settlement. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed, and 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:45 CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 captioned petition is taken up for disposal. 4. The application, accordingly, stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 1. The petitioner has 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. 137/2022, dated 15.07.2022, registered at Police Station Defence Colony, District South, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The petitioner is present through video conference, and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conference, and is identified by the IO. Respondent No. 2 does not wish to seek the assistance of a counsel, including Legal Aid counsel. 3. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of the petitioner No. 1. 4. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 21.11.2016, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 [“SMA”]. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 04.08.2019. 5. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Station House Officer, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered. A chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner under Section 498A of IPC. 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:45 CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have settled all their disputes under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi, by way of a settlement dated 12.03.2026. The settlement records that the parties shall seek quashing of the subject FIR before the divorce proceedings are concluded. The parties have further agreed and undertaken that, upon the FIR being quashed, they shall file the Second Motion petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, alongwith an application seeking waiver of the statutory period of six months, within a period of 10 days, in terms of the settlement. 7. Although the settlement does not contemplate any monetary settlement, respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, categorically states that she is satisfied with the terms of the settlement and does not wish to proceed against the petitioner. 8. It is stated that, pursuant to the settlement, respondent No. 2 withdrew her maintenance and domestic violence petitions on 30.04.2026 and 08.08.2026, respectively. It is further stated that the parties have withdrawn their respective divorce petitions and thereafter jointly filed a First Motion petition for divorce by mutual consent, which was allowed vide order dated 08.08.2026 by the learned Family Court. 9. The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 10. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 11. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:45 CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 (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. 12. 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, 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 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:45 CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 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. 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. 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:45 CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 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 13. In the present case, the proceedings arise out of a matrimonial relationship between the parties, and the parties have already acted upon the terms of their settlement by withdrawing their respective matrimonial proceedings and jointly moving their First Motion petition for divorce by mutual consent. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court, has also categorically affirmed the settlement and stated that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioner and does not wish to pursue the present proceedings. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the settlement arrived at between the parties, and the steps already taken by them pursuant thereto, the possibility of the criminal proceedings culminating in a conviction is remote. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose and would amount to an empty formality, unnecessarily subjecting the parties to further litigation and burdening the criminal justice system with expenditure of valuable judicial time and public resources. 14. Although there is no monetary settlement, respondent No. 2 has stated that she is satisfied with the terms of the settlement and has no objection to quashing of the subject FIR. There is therefore no 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:45 CRL.M.C. 3652/2025 impediment to the grant of the relief sought. 15. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 137/2022, dated 15.07.2022, registered at Police Station Defence Colony, District South, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 16. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 17. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands disposed of. 18. Next date of hearing already fixed, i.e. 15.09.2026, stands cancelled. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 B’/MK/ 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:45