CRL.M.C. 2929/2026 p. 1 $~35 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2929/2026 TUSHAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Kartickay Mathur, Mr. Shankar, Mr. Devender Dubey and Mr. Manish, Advocates. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. Mr. Rishipal Singh, Advocate for R-2. SI Preeti Dhankar and SI Prashant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. The present petition has been filed 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. 402/2025 dated 20.08.2025, registered at Police Station Budh Vihar, District Rohini, Delhi under Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Rishipal Singh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by 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 17/07/2026 at 11:10:31 CRL.M.C. 2929/2026 p. 2 their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and has been identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. Respondent No. 2 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No. 1, having married his brother. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are his sisters. 6. Respondent No. 2 and the brother of petitioner No. 1 were married on 18.11.2024 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the wedlock. Owing to temperamental differences and matrimonial discord, respondent No. 2 and her husband have been living separately since 02.01.2025. 7. The impugned FIR was lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, alleging that while she was asleep in her room, petitioner No. 1, who is her brother-in-law, entered the room and touched her inappropriately. It is further alleged that after she raised an alarm and thereafter disclosed the incident to her husband and the other family members, namely, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, she was threatened and assaulted, and was thereafter turned out of her matrimonial home. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No. 2 and her husband entered into a Memorandum of Understanding [“MOU”] dated 07.02.2026, whereby they agreed to amicably resolve all their disputes. In terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed to seek dissolution of their marriage by filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Respondent No. 2 has also agreed to withdraw all proceedings initiated 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 17/07/2026 at 11:10:31 CRL.M.C. 2929/2026 p. 3 by her against her husband and his family members, including the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the maintenance proceedings, and to cooperate in the quashing of the present FIR. 9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 10. Mr. Singh submits that the allegations giving rise to the present FIR stemmed from misunderstandings arising out of the matrimonial relationship between respondent No. 2 and the brother of petitioner No. 1, and that respondent No. 2 no longer wishes to pursue the present FIR against the petitioners. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. It is well settled that, in an appropriate case, the High Courts may, in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), quash criminal proceedings, including those involving non-compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably settled their disputes, provided that such exercise of jurisdiction does not impinge upon any overriding public interest. 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 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 17/07/2026 at 11:10:31 CRL.M.C. 2929/2026 p. 4 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 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: 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 17/07/2026 at 11:10:31 CRL.M.C. 2929/2026 p. 5 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 14. In the present case, the disputes between the parties arose out of misunderstandings in the backdrop of their matrimonial relationship, which have since been amicably resolved. Applying the principles laid 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 17/07/2026 at 11:10:31 CRL.M.C. 2929/2026 p. 6 down by the Supreme Court, it may be noted that respondent No. 2 has appeared before this Court and categorically affirmed that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. In these circumstances, the possibility of the proceedings culminating in a conviction appears remote. Consequently, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would serve no meaningful purpose and would only result in the unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and public resources. 15. Pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2026, I am informed that the exchange of the specified articles has since been completed. In view thereof, there remains no impediment to granting the relief sought in the present petition. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 402/2025 dated 20.08.2025, registered at Police Station Budh Vihar, District Rohini, Delhi under Sections 74 and 75 of BNS, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 13, 2026 SS/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 17/07/2026 at 11:10:31