CRL.M.C. 4812/2026 $~31 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010299702026 + CRL.M.C. 4812/2026 VIPIN RAWAT & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Gazi Gulfam, Ms. Tanya Singh & Mr. Keshav Kunal Jha, Advocates alongwith Petitioners in Person. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 31.08.2026 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. 893/2023, dated 30.12.2023, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, Dwarka, 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. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public 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 03/09/2026 at 12:08:29 CRL.M.C. 4812/2026 Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State, and Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their 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 impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No. 1. 6. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 14.04.2021 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and one son was born from the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 29.07.2023. 7. Respondent No. 2 thereafter lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, which culminated in registration of the impugned FIR against the present petitioners. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement, which was recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 17.09.2025 under the aegis of the Counselling Cell, Family Courts, South-West, Dwarka. In terms thereof, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 and their minor son towards full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the marriage, including claims 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 03/09/2026 at 12:08:29 CRL.M.C. 4812/2026 relating to istridhan, dowry and past, present and future maintenance. The first instalment of Rs. 2,50,000/- was to be paid to respondent No. 2 at the time of recording of the statement in the first motion; the second instalment of Rs. 2,50,000/- was to be paid at the time of recording of the statements in the second motion; and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of quashing of the subject FIR. 9. It was also agreed that the minor child would remain in the care and custody of respondent No. 2, with petitioner No. 1 having specified visitation rights. It was further agreed that respondent No. 2 would not raise any further claim in respect of the jewellery presently in her possession. 10. It is, however, noted that the rights of the minor child stood restricted by the terms of the aforesaid Settlement Deed. In this regard, petitioner No. 1 has handed over an affidavit dated 31.08.2026 expressly stating that the Settlement Deed shall not affect the rights of the minor child and that his rights and entitlements shall remain independent of, and unaffected by, the terms of the settlement. The said affidavit is taken on record. 11. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 12. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has also been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 17.03.2026, passed by the Family Courts. 13. In view of the aforesaid settlement and the subsequent dissolution of the marriage, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 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 03/09/2026 at 12:08:29 CRL.M.C. 4812/2026 14. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent 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 that the parties have arrived at a settlement, particularly where continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. 15. 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 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 03/09/2026 at 12:08:29 CRL.M.C. 4812/2026 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 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 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 03/09/2026 at 12:08:29 CRL.M.C. 4812/2026 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 16. The present proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The marriage between the parties has since been dissolved by mutual consent, and the parties have settled all their disputes arising out of the matrimonial relationship. Respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed before this Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. The dispute, therefore, is predominantly private in nature and falls within the category of cases in which continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. In the circumstances, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility, apart from unnecessarily burdening the justice system and consuming public resources. 17. The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 and the minor child. Out of the said amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- has already been paid. The balance amount of Rs. 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 03/09/2026 at 12:08:29 CRL.M.C. 4812/2026 3,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today. There is, thus, no impediment to granting the relief sought. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 893/2023, dated 30.12.2023, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 19. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 20. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. 21. 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 31, 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 03/09/2026 at 12:08:29