CRL.M.C. 4997/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~118-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4997/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20988/2026 SURESH UPPAL AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Ponam Panwar, Adv. with petitioners in person. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP SI Pawan Mr. Amit Nayyar, Adv. for R-2, with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. The petitioners have filed 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”], seeking quashing of FIR No. 0276/2016 dated 02.05.2016, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, North-West, Delhi, under Sections 354- A/506/509/34 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 Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State, and Mr. Amit Nayyar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 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 23/07/2026 at 11:49:22 CRL.M.C. 4997/2026 Page 2 of 7 3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person 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. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was married to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the brother of petitioner No. 1. 6. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 25.01.2000, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since 04.11.2024. Two children were born from the wedlock, both of whom have since attained majority. 7. Respondent No. 2 initially lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, which culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR on 02.05.2016 against petitioner No. 1, her husband, and petitioner No. 2, her brother-in-law. It is further informed that respondent No. 2 had earlier lodged FIR No. 362/2015 dated 06.05.2015, registered at Police Station Nagloi, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC. The said FIR was quashed by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 on the ground that the parties had amicably settled their disputes. 8. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a settlement recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed dated 11.06.2026, insofar as it pertains to 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 23/07/2026 at 11:49:22 CRL.M.C. 4997/2026 Page 3 of 7 the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, states that the allegations under Section 354 of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding and that she does not wish to pursue the same any further. She further states that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. 10. It is further stated that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court. 11. In view of the aforesaid settlement and the subsequent dissolution of the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 12. The Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, quash criminal proceedings, including those arising from non-compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the continuation of the proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose, particularly when such quashing would not adversely affect any overriding public interest. 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 23/07/2026 at 11:49:22 CRL.M.C. 4997/2026 Page 4 of 7 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 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 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 23/07/2026 at 11:49:22 CRL.M.C. 4997/2026 Page 5 of 7 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. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak 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 23/07/2026 at 11:49:22 CRL.M.C. 4997/2026 Page 6 of 7 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 impugned FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, who is the complainant in the impugned FIR, has stated before this Court that the allegations under Section 354 of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding and that, having regard to the subsequent settlement between the parties, she does not wish to pursue the proceedings any further. The matrimonial relationship between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has since come to an end pursuant to a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Further, FIR No. 362/2015 registered under Section 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, arising out of the same matrimonial relationship and forming part of the disputes between the parties, has also been quashed by this Court in terms of the settlement arrived at therein. 15. In these circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR, notwithstanding the settlement between the parties and the subsequent dissolution of the marriage, would serve no meaningful purpose. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that, having regard to the nature of the dispute, the subsequent developments between the parties and the categorical stand of respondent No. 2, the possibility of the proceedings culminating in a conviction is remote. The allegations, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, do not disclose such grave criminality or involve any overriding public interest as would warrant the continuation 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 23/07/2026 at 11:49:22 CRL.M.C. 4997/2026 Page 7 of 7 criminal proceedings despite the parties having amicably resolved their disputes. The continuation of the proceedings would, therefore, amount to an empty formality, unnecessarily burdening the criminal justice system and consuming judicial and public resources, without advancing the cause of justice. The exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court would, in these circumstances, serve the ends of justice and prevent the continuation of proceedings whose underlying dispute stands resolved. 16. The terms of the settlement have already been acted upon by the parties in the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 362/2015, and it is stated that no further payment or performance remains outstanding under the settlement. In view thereof, there is no impediment to granting the relief sought in the present petition. 17. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 0276/2016 dated 02.05.2016, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, North-West, Delhi, under Sections 354- A/506/509/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby 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 20, 2026 Tg/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 23/07/2026 at 11:49:22