$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010459422026 + CRL.M.C. 7171/2026 NAUSHAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. G. K. Sachdeva, Advocate with petitioner in person Mob: 9711365812 versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP 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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR 1232/2015, dated 31st August, 2015, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Bindapur, South West District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State, i.e., respondent no. 1, as well as by respondent no. 2, who is present before this Court. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 11:50:14 Signature Not Verified 3. As per the documents on record, it is noted that the said FIR was filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner, who is her husband, as well against his family members, namely, Mohd. Jamil, her father-in-law, and Mr. Rahish, her brother-in-law. 4. It is noted that vide orders dated 11th December, 2023, and 28th March, 2024, passed in Cr Case 25907/2018, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-03, South West, Dwarka, New Delhi, held that the proceedings qua Mohd. Jamil and Mr. Rahish, respectively, stood abated on account of their death. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have settled their matrimonial dispute by executing a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) dated 28th April, 2026, wherein, it was agreed that respondent no. 2 had already received all stridhan and mehar amounts from the petitioner, and that no claims remained pending against the petitioner. It was further agreed that respondent no. 2 was ready to sign the requisite documents and make a statement before this Court for quashing of FIR 1232/2015. 6. Respondent no. 2, who is present before this Court and duly identified by the concerned Investigating Officer (“IO”), confirms the fact that the dispute has been settled with the petitioner by the said MoU, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure of any kind. 7. The aforesaid statement is taken note of. 8. In respect of the said FIR, this Court notes that the offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable, while the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non-compoundable. 9. The Supreme Court has held that High Courts, exercising powers Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 11:50:14 Signature Not Verified under Section 528 of the BNSS, may quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, if the concerned parties have arrived at a compromise, and particularly when no overarching public interest is adversely affected by quashing the same. 10. In Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held as under: “xxx xxx 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 Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 11:50:14 Signature Not Verified 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. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. Further, in Narinder Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing criminal proceedings: “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. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 11:50:14 Signature Not Verified 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. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. This Court notes that the parties have been living separately for approximately 06 years. 13. During her interaction with this Court, respondent no. 2 confirms the fact that she has already settled the dispute with her husband, i.e., the petitioner and does not wish to pursue the present case any further. 14. At this stage, learned APP appearing for the State submits that the MoU executed between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 does not make any provision for their three children, who are currently in the custody of respondent no. 2. 15. He, thus, submits that the rights of the children be kept open. 16. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, it is Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 11:50:14 directed that FIR 1232/2015 dated 31st August, 2015, registered at PS Bindapur, under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the said MoU. 18. However, it is clarified that the rights of the children to pursue any legal claim against their father, i.e., the petitioner, are kept open. 19. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 ak By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 11:50:14