$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010471332026 + CRL.M.C. 7347/2026 & CRL.M.A. 30727/2026 VIVEK SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Md. Tauheed Arshi, Mohd. Hunaid and Mr. Yash Kumar, Advs. with petitioner in person versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Mr. Chetan Dahiya, Adv. along with SI Virender, P.S. Kamla Market. Mr. S.H. Khan and Mr. Daniyal Abbas, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [‘BNSS’], seeking quashing of FIR No. 109 of 2025 lodged at P.S. Kamla Market, District Central Delhi under Sections 85/316(2)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNS, 2023’] (subject FIR) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Issue Notice. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP, accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. Mr. S.H. Khan, learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 2 appears on advance service and accepts notice 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 07/10/2026 at 14:35:27 4. The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are present in Court and are identified by the Investigation Officer [‘IO’], respectively. 5. It is stated that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were married on 18.02.1992 and have two [2] children, both of whom have attained majority. After disputes arose between the parties, the parties started living separately since 2022, and Respondent No. 2 subsequently initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [‘DV Act’]. It is stated that, however, the parties have since reconciled their differences and executed an MOU1 dated 09.03.2026. All other proceedings between them, including those under the DV Act and divorce petition, have been disposed of or withdrawn. 6. It is stated that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have been residing together since March 2026. 7. This Court has interacted with Respondent No. 2. She confirms that she has executed the affidavit dated 01.08.2026 recording her no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR, which is filed as Annexure P-4 along with the present petition. She states that there was a dispute between the parties in 2022. However, the parties have since amicably resolved the dispute, and she therefore agrees to quash the FIR. 8. Learned APP submits that State has no objection to the prayer made in this petition and submits that no charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused 1 Memorandum of Understanding 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 07/10/2026 at 14:35:27 the record. 10. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.2, which 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 2 (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 07/10/2026 at 14:35:27 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. 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 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. 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 07/10/2026 at 14:35:27 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In the present case, the proceedings emanate from a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The disputes have been resolved, parties have reconciled and the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have resumed cohabitation. The Respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the Settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, 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 07/10/2026 at 14:35:27 the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and their continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have attempted to reconcile and continuation or pendency of criminal proceedings would certainly hinder the reconciliation. The disputes are personal in nature and thus, keeping in view the law settled by Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 and exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 13. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 109 of 2025 lodged at P.S. Kamla Market, District Central Delhi under Sections 85/316(2)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15. The petition, along with the pending application, accordingly stands disposed of. 16. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihigsshcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/a/aj 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 07/10/2026 at 14:35:27