$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22nd September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010453312026 + CRL.M.C. 7078/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29544/2026 SHAMSHER SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sandeep Jain and Mr. Sona Ram Gupta, Advs. Petitioner no. 1 in person versus THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State M: 9899723716 SI Anil, PS Seemapuri Respondent no. 2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL): 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), for quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR 105/2024 dated 29th January, 2024, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Seemapuri, Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“DP Act”), as well as proceedings arising therefrom that are pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:00:06 Signature Not Verified 2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) appearing for the State, i.e., respondent no. 1, who submits that two Sections are not compoundable in the aforesaid FIR. 3. Notice is also accepted by respondent no. 2, who is present before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and respondent no. 2 have amicably settled their disputes vide Settlement Agreement dated 22nd March, 2024, arrived at before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 5. It is submitted that as per the aforesaid Settlement Agreement, petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 1 Lac to respondent no. 2, as full and final settlement of their matrimonial disputes towards her maintenance, stridhan, dowry articles, maintenance, jewellery and permanent alimony. 6. Further, it is submitted that as per the Settlement Agreement, Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid by petitioner no. 1 to respondent no. 2 at the time of recording of the parties’ statement in the first motion petition for divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), in HMA 1050/2024. The said first motion petition was allowed vide order dated 05th June, 2024. 7. Subsequently, the domestic violence case filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi was withdrawn. 8. Respondent No. 2 also withdrew the petition for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, filed under Section 125 of the CrPC being Mt. Case 705/2023, before the Family Court, Shahdara District, Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:00:06 Signature Not Verified Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 9. This Court is further informed that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by petitioner no. 1 to respondent no. 2 at the time of recording the parties’ statement in the second motion petition for divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA. 10. Thus, the parties have already been granted a divorce decree by way of mutual consent vide judgment and decree dated 07th October, 2024, passed by the Family Court-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 11. It is submitted that the last instalment of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR, which is the subject matter of the present petition. 12. Respondent no. 2 is present before this Court and confirms the fact that she has received Rs. 50,000/- by way of Demand Draft today. 13. Respondent no. 2 further submits that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings in respect of the FIR in question against the petitioner. 14. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court notes that the parties have already settled their disputes by way of the Settlement Agreement dated 22nd March, 2024. Further, respondent no. 2 has withdrawn the other cases filed by her against the petitioner. 15. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, may quash criminal proceedings even in cases involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have arrived at a settlement. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned that such power must be exercised with circumspection, particularly, where the allegations concern offences of a serious or heinous nature. In Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:00:06 Signature Not Verified Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court elaborated upon the scope and limitations of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The relevant extracts are reproduced below: “xxx xxxx xxx 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. xxxx xxxx xxxx 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:00:06 Signature Not Verified proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:00:06 Signature Not Verified 16. Further, in Narinder Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court formulated guiding principles for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC in cases involving compromise. The Court emphasised that while the power to quash is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 320 of the CrPC, it must be exercised sparingly, bearing in mind the nature and gravity of the offence. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “xxx xxx xxx 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 Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:00:06 Signature Not Verified 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. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 17. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and in view of the said Settlement Agreement between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to continue any further, and the same would only lead to the waste of precious judicial time and resources. 18. Further, the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have already divorced by mutual consent. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the parties lead a peaceful and settled life, especially, in view of the fact that they have already amicably settled all the disputes. 19. It is noted that respondent no. 2 has expressed her desire not to pursue the proceedings any further. 20. It is to be seen that the FIR does not pertain to any heinous crime or any other crime pertaining to public interest. 21. In case the present proceedings are allowed to continue, it would only perpetuate hostility between the parties. 22. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, and having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed, and FIR 105/2024 dated 29th January, 2024, registered at PS Seemapuri, along with the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:00:06 Signature Not Verified 23. The present petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/KR By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:00:06