CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 $~36 & 37 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010544452025 + CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 SH. DEEPAK DAHIYA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate. SI Rakesh Rana. Mr. Kapil Kaushik, Advocate for R-2. # CNR No. DLHC010593862025 + CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 DEEPAK DAHIYA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate. SI Rakesh Rana. Mr. Kapil Kaushik, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 16.09.2026 1. The petitioner has filed these petitions under Section 528 of 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:05 CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 376/2014, dated 17.03.2014, registered at Police Station Kanjhawala, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5347/2025], and FIR No. 205/2023, dated 30.03.2023, registered at Police Station Begumpur, Delhi, under Sections 323/341/354/354(B)/509/506/356/34 of the IPC [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5785/2025], along with 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, and Ms. Shruti Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 in both matters. 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 person and is identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The petitions are taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. The impugned FIRs were registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 and is also arrayed as petitioner No. 1 in CRL.M.C. 5785/2025, while petitioner No. 2 therein is his sister. 6. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 08.12.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and a son was born from the wedlock on 18.10.2011. Owing to matrimonial discord and 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:05 CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 08.02.2014. 7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, which culminated in the registration of FIR No. 376/2014. Although there are other accused in the said FIR, respondent No. 2 states that she does not wish to prosecute the case against the other accused and seeks quashing of the FIR in its entirety. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 01.08.2024 under the aegis of the Counseling Cell, learned Family Court, North-West, Rohini Courts, wherein they agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Under the terms of the settlement, the petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 39,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims arising out of the marriage, including istridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance. Out of the said amount, Rs. 14,00,000/- had already been paid; Rs. 10,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of recording of the statement of first motion; a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of recording of the statement of second motion; and the remaining Rs. 5,00,000/- was to be paid upon quashing of FIR No. 376/2014 and FIR No. 205/2023. 9. It was further agreed that custody of their minor child, Divyansh Dahiya, would remain with respondent No. 2, with the petitioner having specified visitation rights. 10. Insofar as the allegations under Sections 323/341/354/354(B)/509/506/356/34 of the IPC, forming the subject 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:05 CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 matter of CRL.M.C. 5785/2025, are concerned, the same were levelled against petitioner No. 2 and the father of petitioner No. 1, who has since passed away and against whom the proceedings stand abated. Respondent No. 2 states that the said allegations arose in the course of the matrimonial dispute and were the result of a misunderstanding between the parties. 11. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent No. 2 also confirms the terms of the settlement and states that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIRs. 12. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the learned Family Court. 13. In view of the settlement between the parties and the stand taken by respondent No. 2, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 14. Although the offences in question are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), 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 overriding public interest is adversely affected. 15. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has held as follows: 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:05 CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 “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 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: 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:05 CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 “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. 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 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:05 CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 quashing the criminal cases.”4 16. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. The parties have also resolved their disputes in terms of the settlement, and respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Insofar as FIR No. 205/2023, which is the subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5785/2025, is concerned, respondent No. 2 has specifically stated that the allegations therein arose out of a misunderstanding in the wake of the matrimonial dispute. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, the possibility of the criminal proceedings culminating in a conviction is remote. Their continuation would, therefore, serve no useful purpose and would only result in an unnecessary burden on the justice system and expenditure of public resources. 17. The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs. 39,00,000/- to respondent No. 2. Out of the said amount, Rs. 34,00,000/- has already been paid, and the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today. The terms of the settlement have thus been complied with, and there is no impediment to granting the relief sought. 18. Having regard to the foregoing, the petitions are allowed. FIR No. 376/2014, dated 17.03.2014, registered at Police Station Kanjhawala, 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:05 CRL.M.C. 5347/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5785/2025 Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5347/2025], and FIR No. 205/2023, dated 30.03.2023, registered at Police Station Begumpur, Delhi, under Sections 323/341/354/354(B)/509/506/356/34 of the IPC [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5785/2025], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 19. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 20. The petitions, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stand disposed of. 21. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody remains with respondent No. 2. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 SS/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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:05