CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 p. 1 $~63 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 MOHD FARID AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Bhaskar Upadhaya, Advocate. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Jyoti. Mr. Kautilya Kumar Mishra, Advocate, with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 03.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 18717/2026 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 1. By way of 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”)], the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 1376/2015 dated 26.09.2015, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, South-West Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:52 CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 p. 2 Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Kautilya Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioners are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 19.08.2014 in accordance with Muslim customs and rites. Petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No. 1, and petitioner No. 2 is his sister-in-law. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, disputes arose between the parties, and they started residing separately shortly thereafter. 6. The impugned FIR came to be registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 pursuant to a complaint lodged by her before the Crime Against Women Cell. 7. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet has since been filed in the matter. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a formal Settlement Deed dated 02.06.2026, recording that they have reconciled their matrimonial relationship and are residing together peacefully as husband and wife. It is submitted that, although the impugned FIR was lodged in the year 2015, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had reconciled shortly thereafter and have, in fact, been residing together since 2016. It has also been brought to the notice of this 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:52 CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 p. 3 Court that, in the interregnum, a child has been born out of the said wedlock. 9. Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court in person and confirms that she has been residing in the matrimonial home for the last ten years. She further states that the reconciliation was arrived at voluntarily and that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. Mr. Vali, however, points out that the chargesheet makes reference to a statement of the petitioners, to the effect that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had dissolved their marriage on 31.05.2016 and had arrived at a settlement for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. However, Mr. Bhaskar Upadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that no such dissolution of marriage had, in fact, taken effect. Mr. Upadhaya further clarifies that the document dated 31.05.2016 was executed by the parties merely to record their intention to dissolve the marriage upon payment of the agreed settlement amount by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2. Since the parties subsequently reconciled and resumed their matrimonial relationship, the said amount was never paid, and the contemplated dissolution did not materialise. 13. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, High Courts may exercise their inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC], to quash criminal 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:52 CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 p. 4 proceedings, including those involving non-compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and the continuation of such proceedings would not subserve any larger public or societal 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 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:52 CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 p. 5 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:52 CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 p. 6 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 facts and circumstances of the present case, the dispute arises out of a matrimonial relationship between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, which now stands restored. It is significant to note that, despite the registration of the impugned FIR in the year 2015, the parties reconciled shortly thereafter and have continued to reside together as husband and wife since 2016, a position which has been categorically affirmed by respondent No. 2 before this Court. The Settlement Deed dated 02.06.2026 records the continuation of their matrimonial relationship and the amicable resolution of all disputes between them. 16. In these circumstances, having regard to the prolonged cohabitation, the voluntary nature of the settlement, and the absence of any subsisting grievance on the part of respondent No. 2, no useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings to continue. On the contrary, the continuation of such proceedings would only disrupt the restored matrimonial harmony and revive disputes which the parties have consciously resolved. Such a situation would also be detrimental to the welfare of their minor child. Further, in view of the 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:52 CRL.M.C. 4522/2026 p. 7 principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the possibility of conviction in the present case appears remote and bleak, and the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an exercise in futility, unnecessarily burdening the criminal justice system without serving any larger public or societal interest. 17. Having regard to the foregoing discussion and in light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 1376/2015 dated 26.09.2015, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, South-West Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stands 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 JULY 3, 2026 SS/MK/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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:52