CRL.M.C. 4448/2026 $~29-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010267282026 + CRL.M.C. 4448/2026 & CRL.M.A. 18312/2026 PRAVIN KUMAR @ PRAVEEN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pravesh Kumar and Ms. Nazma, Advocates. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Zahid Ali, Mr. MS Khan, Advocates for R-2. SI Ved Prakash. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. The petitioner has 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. 23/2018 dated 19.01.2018, registered at Police Station Jait Pur, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State, and Mr. Zahid 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:27 CRL.M.C. 4448/2026 Ali, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner is present in Court and is identified by his learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is 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 petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 30.11.2015. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 28.03.2017. One male child was born from the wedlock. 6. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of the petitioner. 7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, which culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR against five accused persons, namely, the petitioner, his parents, brother and sister. 8. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parents of the petitioner passed away on 30.07.2021 and 13.05.2023, respectively, and the proceedings against them accordingly stand abated. Their death certificates have been annexed to the petition. The sister-in-law and brother-in-law of respondent No. 2 were subsequently discharged. 9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement, which was recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 05.12.2024 under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Saket Courts. In terms 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:27 CRL.M.C. 4448/2026 thereof, the petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims, including past, present and future maintenance, permanent alimony and stridhan. It was further agreed that the dowry articles would be returned to respondent No. 2 as per the admitted list after the first motion of divorce. The settlement amount was agreed to be paid in three installments, comprising Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 at the time of recording of statements in the first motion proceedings, Rs.1,50,000/- to be placed in a fixed deposit in the name of the minor child at the time of recording of statements in the second motion proceedings, and the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to respondent No. 2 at the time of quashing of the aforesaid FIR before this Court. 10. The custody of the minor child was agreed to remain with respondent No. 2, with the petitioner having visitation rights as mutually agreed between the parties and the child, without prejudice to the rights of the child. 11. An affidavit has been given on behalf of the petitioner stating that the rights and remedies of the minor child shall not be affected by the terms of the settlement. The same is taken on record. 12. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 13. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 22.07.2025, passed by the Family Courts. 14. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:27 CRL.M.C. 4448/2026 15. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences on the ground of compromise between the accused and the complainant, particularly where no overriding public interest is adversely affected. 16. 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 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:27 CRL.M.C. 4448/2026 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: 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 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:27 CRL.M.C. 4448/2026 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 17. In the present case, the proceedings arise out of a matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, which has since culminated in a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The parties have entered into a comprehensive settlement, pursuant to which the matrimonial disputes between them have been resolved. Respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. In these circumstances, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 18. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to respondent No. 2. Out of the said amount, Rs.3,50,000/- has already been paid. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today. Thus, the settlement amount has been paid in full and there is no impediment to granting the relief sought. 19. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:27 CRL.M.C. 4448/2026 23/2018 dated 19.01.2018, registered at Police Station Jait Pur, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 20. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 21. The petition, alongwith any pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. 22. 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 11, 2026 SS/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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:27