CRL.M.C. 4911/2026 $~98-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4911/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20619/2026 ARPIT GUPTA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Chitrakshi, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI Suresh Kumar. Mr. Ram Lal, Advocate for R2 with R2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 16.07.2026 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. 503/2020 dated 24.08.2020, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ram Lal, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant. 3. The parties are present in Court, and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. 4. The daughter of the complainant and petitioner No. 1 were married on 05.12.2019. No child was born from the wedlock. 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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:19 CRL.M.C. 4911/2026 5. Subsequently, the impugned FIR was registered on 24.08.2020, which is the date on which the daughter of the complainant [wife of petitioner No. 1] passed away, against petitioner No. 1, his parents [petitioner Nos. 2 and 3], and his brother [petitioner No. 4]. 6. Although the chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A, 304B, and 34 of the IPC, the petitioners have been discharged of the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC, by order of the learned Sessions Court dated 28.07.2025, and charges have been framed only under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have settled their disputes under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, as recorded in a Settlement dated 11.05.2026. While the settlement does not contemplate any monetary consideration, the parties state that they are satisfied with the terms thereof. The complainant, who is present in person and represented by counsel, states that he does not wish to pursue the case any further. 8. Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, and without any coercion or undue influence. 9. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 10. Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non- compoundable, 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 the CrPC], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, 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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:19 CRL.M.C. 4911/2026 on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected. 11. 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 prescribed.”2 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:19 CRL.M.C. 4911/2026 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. 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. 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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:19 CRL.M.C. 4911/2026 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 12. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a settlement, and the daughter of the complainant has passed away. As noted above, although the chargesheet was filed, inter alia, under Section 304B of the IPC, the petitioners were discharged of the said offence. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the complainant has categorically affirmed before this Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, and that he does not wish to pursue the case any further. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 13. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 503/2020 dated 24.08.2020, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 16, 2026/“B/KA”/ 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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:19