CRL.M.C. 6949/2026 $~109-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010446012026 + CRL.M.C. 6949/2026 DENESH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mayank Verma, Mr. Kanishk Singh, Mr. Saransh Bisht, Mr. Sudhanshu Bajaj, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. SI Rakesh. Mr. Manish Dixit, Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 18.09.2026 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. 386/2021, dated 17.12.2021, registered at Police Station Budh Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State, and Mr. Manish Dixit, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 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 23/09/2026 at 10:35:47 CRL.M.C. 6949/2026 3. 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 impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 2, while petitioner No. 4 is his sister. 5. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 were married on 29.04.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and one daughter was born out of the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 08.04.2021. 6. Respondent No. 2 thereafter lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, which culminated in registration of the impugned FIR against the four petitioners. 7. A chargesheet was subsequently filed on 12.07.2023 against the petitioners. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement, which was recorded in a Compromise Deed dated 17.12.2025. As per the terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 2 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement, in three instalments, namely, Rs. 3,00,000/- at the time of recording of the statement in the first motion petition, Rs. 2,50,000/- at the time of recording of the statement in the second motion petition, and Rs. 2,50,000/- at the time of quashing of the impugned FIR. It was further 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 23/09/2026 at 10:35:47 CRL.M.C. 6949/2026 agreed that the minor child would remain in the custody of respondent No. 2, with no visitation rights to petitioner No. 2. 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 between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 09.04.2026, passed by the Family Court. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate circumstances, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, particularly where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. 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 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 23/09/2026 at 10:35:47 CRL.M.C. 6949/2026 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 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 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 23/09/2026 at 10:35:47 CRL.M.C. 6949/2026 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 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 proceedings arise out of a matrimonial relationship between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2. The matrimonial relationship has since come to an end by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and respondent No. 2 has categorically 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 23/09/2026 at 10:35:47 CRL.M.C. 6949/2026 affirmed before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. In these circumstances, and having regard to the nature of the dispute and the settlement arrived at between the parties, the possibility of the proceedings ultimately resulting in conviction appears remote. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would, therefore, serve little purpose and would only prolong the dispute between the parties and entail further expenditure of judicial time and public resources. 15. The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to respondent No. 2. Out of the said amount, Rs. 5,50,000/- has already been paid, and the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today. There is, therefore, no impediment in granting the relief sought by the petitioners. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 386/2021, dated 17.12.2021, registered at Police Station Budh Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18. The petition, alongwith any 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 SEPTEMBER 18, 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 23/09/2026 at 10:35:47