CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 $~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010482652026 + YATIN NIMESH & ORS. .....Petitioners CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 and Crl.M.A.31421/2026 Through: Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State and Ms. Swati, Adv. Mr. N.L. Singh and Ms. Amita Sharma, Advs. for R-2. IO / SI Mohan Lal, PS Narela Industrial Area CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners 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.1053/2024 dated 15.11.2024, registered at Police Station Narela Industrial Area, Outer North District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC (corresponding to Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5), respectively, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)), together with all proceedings emanating therefrom. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of respondent no.2; petitioner nos.2 and 3 are his father and mother, respectively. 2. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married on 20.04.2022 at Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Delhi, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock. The parties have been living separately since 02.06.2022 on account of irreconcilable temperamental differences. 3. The aforesaid FIR came to be registered on 15.11.2024 on the complaint of respondent no.2 against the petitioners, alleging cruelty and demands for dowry, as also misappropriation of her stridhan. 4. The parties have since settled their disputes by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.07.2026, executed at Delhi. The same reads as under: Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 5. In terms of the settlement, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the HMA. The said petition, being HMA No.1443/2026, was allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and by decree dated 03.09.2026, the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 stands dissolved with effect from that date. 6. The parties are present in person and are identified by the Investigating Officer (IO). Respondent no.2 submits that she has settled the disputes with the petitioners of her own free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence, and she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. It is also confirmed that out of the total settlement amount of Rs.9,60,000/-, a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- has already been received. A demand draft for the remaining amount of Rs.3,20,000/- has been handed over during the course of the hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the complainant/respondent no.2. The complainant/respondent no.2 confirms receipt of the same. The entire settlement amount of Rs.9,60,000/- thus stands paid. 7. Respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit dated 29.09.2026, affirming that she has settled all her disputes with the petitioners and that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. The petitioners and respondent no.2 further state that Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 no other proceeding remains pending between them. 8. The disputes between the parties are matrimonial and essentially private in nature. The offences alleged do not fall within the category of heinous or serious offences of mental depravity, or offences such as murder, rape or dacoity, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 9. The marriage stands dissolved, the complainant/respondent no.2 has received the entire settlement amount and does not wish to pursue the case. In these circumstances, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and the continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would serve no useful purpose. 10. This Court is conscious that the offence under Section 498A of the IPC (Section 85 of the BNS) is non-compoundable, whereas the offence under Section 406 of the IPC (Section 316(2) of the BNS) is compoundable, with the permission of the Court, by the owner of the property in respect of which the breach of trust has been committed, in terms of Section 320(2) of the CrPC (now Section 359(2) of the BNSS). However, the power of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from, and is not circumscribed by, the power of compounding conferred on a criminal court. 11. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimony or family disputes, where the wrong is private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, stand on a different footing for the Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 purposes of quashing. The relevant extracts read 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 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.” 12. The said principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it has been held as under: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 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 offender. 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. 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. xxx xxx xxx” 13. Specifically in the context of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, has held as under: “14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. 15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.” 14. Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC (Section 85 of the BNS) is non-compoundable, the aforesaid principles apply with equal force to the exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 482 of the CrPC. In the present case, the FIR arises out of a matrimonial relationship and is essentially private in nature; the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.07.2026; the marriage stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 03.09.2026, and there is no issue from the marriage; the entire settlement amount of Rs.9,60,000/- stands paid; and respondent no.2, who is present in Court and has been identified by the IO, has affirmed the settlement and the receipt of the said amount, and has also filed an affidavit of no objection. None of the Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7517/2026 petitioners was arrested, no prosecution witness has been examined, and the petitioners have no other criminal antecedents. In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and the continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 15. As such, in terms of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, there is no impediment to acceding to the joint request of the petitioners and respondent no.2 for quashing of FIR No.1053/2024 and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 16. Accordingly, FIR No.1053/2024 dated 15.11.2024, registered at P.S. Narela Industrial Area, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua all the petitioners, are quashed. The parties undertake to abide by the terms of the Settlement / Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.07.2026. The said undertaking is taken on record. 17. The petition is allowed in the above terms. The pending application, being CRL.M.A. 31421/2026, also stands disposed of. SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 7, 2026/cl,sd Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:08.10.2026 11:55:40