CRL.M.C. 3831/2026 $~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 # CNR No.DLHC010218162026 + ASHISH CHAMOLI & ORS. .....Petitioners CRL.M.C. 3831/2026 and Crl.M.A.15540/2026 Through: Ms. Isha Baloni, Adv. along with petitioner no.1 in person. versus STATE NCT OFDELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State along with Mr. Naved and Mr. Mayank Chaudhary, Advs. Mr. Kamlesh Uniyal, Mr. Pranteek Uniyal and Mr. Virender Prasad, Advs. for R-2 along with R-2 in person. SI Sumit Tomar, PS Aman Vihar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition, filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeks quashing of FIR No.527/2024, dated 17.08.2024, registered at PS Aman Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 85/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The ground urged is the settlement of matrimonial disputes between the petitioners and respondent no.2. Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:07.10.2026 10:29:27 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3831/2026 3. The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 85/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 4. The allegations made pertain to the period from February 2024 to May 2024. 5. It is brought to notice that a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), dated 05.10.2024, was entered into between the parties. The same has been filed as Annexure-P4 to the present petition. 6. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, who are present in person, submit that all disputes stand resolved in terms of the said MOU. The other interse proceedings between the parties, interalia under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, stand withdrawn, and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has also been passed. 7. A bank draft of Rs. 2 Lakhs, being the remaining amount payable under the MOU between the parties, has been handed over to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 confirms the receipt of the same. 8. 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 basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing. The relevant extract reads as under: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal 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 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:07.10.2026 10:29:27 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3831/2026 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 predominatingly 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 bynot 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.” Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:07.10.2026 10:29:27 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3831/2026 9. 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 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. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:07.10.2026 10:29:27 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3831/2026 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 xxxxxx” 10. Specifically in the context of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme 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.” 11. Although the offence under Section 85 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) is non-compoundable, the aforesaid principles, enunciated in the context of Section 482 Cr.P.C., apply Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:07.10.2026 10:29:27 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3831/2026 with equal force to the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute which is essentially private in nature. The parties have amicably resolved all their disputes in terms of the MOU dated 05.10.2024; the other inter se proceedings stand withdrawn; a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed; and respondent no.2, who is present in person, has confirmed the settlement as well as the receipt of the balance amount payable thereunder. In such cases, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 12. Considering the circumstances, there is no impediment to allowing the present petition. The same is also conceded by the Investigating Officer (“IO”), who is present in Court. No objection is raised by learned APP for the State. 13. In the circumstances, the present petition is allowed. 14. FIR No. 527/2024 and all proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed. SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/cl,sd Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:07.10.2026 10:29:27