CRL.M.C. 6676/2026 $~112-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010426212026 + CRL.M.C. 6676/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27917/2026 SH. GURPREET SINGH AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vijay Waghey, Mr. Ankush M. Kumar, Ms. Simran, Ms. Divya Singh, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Avanush Kumar, PS-Krishna Nagar. Mr. Bharat, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 09.09.2026 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. 203/2024 dated 30.03.2024, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Bharat, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are present in Court, while petitioner Nos. 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 14/09/2026 at 16:07:43 CRL.M.C. 6676/2026 and 4 are present through video conferencing. They are identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and is identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who, at the relevant time, was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner No. 4 is the relative of petitioner No. 1. 5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 05.12.2021, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and no child was born from the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 31.07.2023. 6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Delhi Commission for Women, pursuant to which the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners. 7. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet has been filed, and the matter is presently at the stage of framing of charges. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, by way of a settlement dated 13.12.2025. Under the terms of the settlement, a total amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to respondent No. 2 in three instalments, namely, Rs. 8,00,000/- at the time of the first motion under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [“HMA”], Rs. 8,00,000/- at the time of the second motion under HMA, and the final amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which has been handed over in 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 14/09/2026 at 16:07:43 CRL.M.C. 6676/2026 Court today. It was further agreed that respondent No. 2 would vacate the matrimonial house on or before 15.02.2026. 9. Mr. Vijay Waghey, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent No. 2 has since vacated the matrimonial house in terms of the settlement. Mr. Bharat, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submits, however, that after respondent No. 2 vacated the property, a notice was issued on behalf of petitioner No. 3, who is the owner of the property, seeking payment of a certain amount from respondent No. 2. Mr. Waghey clarifies that the petitioners have since paid the final instalment towards full and final settlement of the disputes between the parties and that they have no claim whatsoever against respondent No. 2 in respect of the said property. 10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 11. 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 23.04.2026 passed by the learned Family Court. 12. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 13. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings, even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled their disputes, particularly where continuation of the proceedings would not serve any overarching 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 14/09/2026 at 16:07:43 CRL.M.C. 6676/2026 interest. 14. 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 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 14/09/2026 at 16:07:43 CRL.M.C. 6676/2026 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 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 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 14/09/2026 at 16:07:43 CRL.M.C. 6676/2026 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 15. The present proceedings arise out of a matrimonial relationship which has since culminated in a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The parties have settled their disputes comprehensively, and respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent No. 2 has also since vacated the matrimonial home in terms of the settlement, and the issue relating to the property has been clarified on behalf of the petitioners. In these circumstances, the possibility of the proceedings ultimately resulting in conviction appears remote, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve little purpose other than adding to the burden of the criminal justice system. 16. The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- to respondent No. 2, out of which Rs. 16,00,000/- has already been received by her. The balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been handed over to learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in Court today. The terms of the settlement have thus been complied with, and there is no impediment to granting the relief sought. 17. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 203/2024 dated 30.03.2024, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 498A/506/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 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 14/09/2026 at 16:07:43 CRL.M.C. 6676/2026 18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 “B”/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 14/09/2026 at 16:07:43