CRL.M.C. 5585/2026 $~78 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010350822026 + CRL.M.C. 5585/2026 PARVESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Ranga, Advocate alongwith Petitioner in Person. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with Mr. Abhay Sahni, Advocate. SI Devendra Singh, PS Jyoti Nagar. Mr. Rohit Mishra & Ms. Deepanshi Verma, Advocates alongwith R-2 in Person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 04.08.2026 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. 712/2022 dated 15.09.2022, registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, North East, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between 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 10/08/2026 at 11:21:02 CRL.M.C. 5585/2026 the parties have been amicably resolved pursuant to a settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State, and Mr. Rohit Mishra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by his learned counsel as well as by 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 petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 17.05.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and one son was born out of the said wedlock on 12.02.2020. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since 25.11.2020. 5. The impugned FIR came to be registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of petitioner No. 1, against nine accused persons, namely, her husband, her parents-in- law, two brothers-in-law, two sisters-in-law, and the petitioner’s uncle and aunt. 6. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed against the accused persons. Thereafter, by order dated 19.10.2024, all the accused, except the petitioner herein, were discharged, and charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 7. The parties have thereafter entered into a settlement, recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated 01.04.2026, whereby they agreed to amicably resolve all their disputes and claims, including 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 10/08/2026 at 11:21:02 CRL.M.C. 5585/2026 those relating to maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony, istridhan, properties, documents, and the upbringing of their minor son, for a total settlement amount of Rs. 19,25,000/-. The settlement amount was agreed to be paid in three instalments, namely, Rs. 7,00,000/- at the time of recording the first motion, Rs. 7,00,000/- at the time of recording the second motion, and the balance amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- at the time of quashing of the impugned FIR. It was further agreed that the parties’ minor son would remain in the permanent custody of respondent No. 2, while the petitioner relinquished his custody rights and would be entitled to visitation with prior intimation, subject to the comfort and convenience of the child. 8. Although certain clauses of the MoU purport to restrict the rights of the minor child, learned counsel for the parties have clarified that the child’s independent legal rights shall remain unaffected by the terms of the settlement. The parties have also affirmed the same on affidavits, which have been handed up in Court and are taken on record. 9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 29.04.2026, passed by the learned Family Courts. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. It is well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may, in appropriate cases, quash criminal proceedings 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 10/08/2026 at 11:21:02 CRL.M.C. 5585/2026 involving even non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, provided that such quashing does not adversely affect 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 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 10/08/2026 at 11:21:02 CRL.M.C. 5585/2026 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 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 10/08/2026 at 11:21:02 CRL.M.C. 5585/2026 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 criminal proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute, and the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Respondent No. 2 has appeared before this Court and unequivocally affirmed that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, of her own free will and without any coercion or undue influence. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the possibility of the proceedings culminating in a conviction is remote. In the circumstances, permitting the prosecution to continue would serve no useful purpose and would merely result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and public resources. 15. In terms of the settlement, the petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 19,25,000/- to respondent No. 2. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- has already been paid, and the balance amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today. Accordingly, all the terms of the settlement stand duly complied with, and there remains no impediment to the grant of the relief sought. 16. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 712/2022 dated 15.09.2022, registered at Police 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 10/08/2026 at 11:21:02 CRL.M.C. 5585/2026 Station Jyoti Nagar, North East, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stands quashed. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. 19. 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 AUGUST 4, 2026 ‘pv’/SD/ 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 10/08/2026 at 11:21:02