CRL.M.C. 6101/2026 $~89-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010386652026 + CRL.M.C. 6101/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25538/2026 SANJAY SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nishant and Ms. Charu, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. Mr. Chanderjeet Yadav and Mr. Rohit, Advocates for R2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 19.08.2026 1. The petitioner has 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. 298/2016, dated 26.02.2016, registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar, District South, Delhi, under Sections 354D/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Chanderjeet Yadav, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant. 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:46 CRL.M.C. 6101/2026 3. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who is the sister-in-law of the petitioner [brother’s wife]. The allegations, as emerging therefrom, are that, in the year 2016, respondent No. 2 received obscene messages from an unknown sender and, when confronted, the sender threatened to visit her residence. In the course of the investigation, the petitioner was identified to be the said sender, and a chargesheet was subsequently filed against him. 5. Mr. Srivastava states that respondent No. 2 has not provided details of the contents of the alleged obscene messages. He further submits that, in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC recorded on 23.03.2016, respondent No. 2 diluted the allegations made in the FIR, and stated that the petitioner had apologised to her, which she had accepted. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled their disputes by way of a Deed of Settlement dated 07.08.2026. 7. The settlement records that the FIR arose from a momentary lapse of judgment on the part of the parties, without any deliberate or malicious intent. It further records that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, who are close family members, and continue to reside in a harmonious manner in the same household. 8. Although the settlement does not contemplate any monetary consideration, respondent No. 2, who is present in Court and represented by learned counsel, states that she is satisfied with the terms thereof. She 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:46 CRL.M.C. 6101/2026 further submits that she continues to be married to the petitioner’s brother, and that the parties reside in the same household. 9. Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. 10. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 11. 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 with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected. 12. 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 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:46 CRL.M.C. 6101/2026 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: 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 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:46 CRL.M.C. 6101/2026 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 13. The present case emanates from a dispute between close family members. Respondent No. 2 continues to be married to the petitioner’s brother, and the parties reside in the same household. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, respondent No. 2 has unequivocally stated before this Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the present case warrants the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as such an order would advance the ends of justice by enabling the parties to live in peace and 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:46 CRL.M.C. 6101/2026 harmony rather than perpetuating animosity. The continuation of the criminal proceedings is also unlikely to culminate in a conviction and would amount to an empty formality, thereby unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and leading to the avoidable consumption of public resources. 14. However, I am of the view that, considering the nature of the allegations involved in the present case and the fact that the criminal machinery has been set into motion and kept in operation for a considerable period of time [10 years], it would be appropriate to impose conditions upon the petitioner to undertake community service and deposit costs. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to perform community service for eight sessions of three hours each, at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi [“AIIMS”], over the next three months. The petitioner will report to the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, on 26.08.2026 at 11:00 AM. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties to him, which may be scheduled having regard to the petitioner’s work-related commitments. The Medical Superintendent is also requested to issue a certificate of compliance upon completion of the aforesaid. The petitioner shall place the same on record within two weeks thereafter. 16. The petitioner is also directed to deposit costs of Rs. 30,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within a period of four weeks. An affidavit of compliance be filed within two weeks thereafter. 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:46 CRL.M.C. 6101/2026 17. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 298/2016, dated 26.02.2016, registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar, District South, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 18. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 19, 2026 SS/MK/ 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:46