CRL.M.C. 7118/2026 $~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.09.2026 # CNR No.DLHC010456522026 + CRL.M.C. 7118/2026 BRIJESH SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Mr. Ankit Singh, Ms. Satya Shruti, Mr.Nikhil Pramod and Mr. Chanderpal, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State. Ms. Farzana and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advs. for R-2. SI Naveen Kumar, PS Mahendra Park. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 29731/2026 (Exemption from filing certified copies of annexures) 1. This application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant/petitioner to file certified copies of the annexures within a period of two weeks from today. CRL.M.C. 7118/2026 2. The present petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 56/2020 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”), registered at PS Mahendra Park, Delhi and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR. Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:03:47 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7118/2026 3. It is pointed out that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and have resolved all their outstanding disputes. 4. It transpires that multiple settlement agreements have been executed between the parties, the latest one having been executed before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi on 02.06.2026. The same reads as under: Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:03:47 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7118/2026 Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:03:47 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7118/2026 5. It is submitted that apart from the amount mentioned in the aforesaid settlement agreement (amounting to a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs), another sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs was previously paid to the complainant pursuant to an earlier settlement agreement. 6. Today, during the course of hearing, a bank draft, bearing No. 776132, of Rs. 2 Lakhs has been handed over to the complainant/ respondent no. 2. The complainant confirms having received a total sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs in pursuance of the settlement/understanding arrived at between the parties. 7. It is submitted by the complainant/respondent no. 2 that all outstanding disputes stand resolved. 8. The concerned Investigating Officer (IO) has identified the petitioners and the complainant/ respondent no. 2. 9. Learned APP for the State accedes that there is no impediment in allowing the present petition. 10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- “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 Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:03:47 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7118/2026 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.” 11. Accordingly, in view of the above and as jointly prayed, FIR No. 56/2020 under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC registered at PS Mahendra Park, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. 12. The petition is allowed in the above terms. SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/r,vk By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:03:47