CRL.M.C. 197/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~37-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 197/2026 & CRL.M.A. 737/2026 MR HARPREET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate with Petitioner on VC. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI Ajay Kumar. Respondent No. 2 on VC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 21.05.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition 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. 147/2021 dated 20.03.2021, registered at Police Station Dwarka North, Delhi, under Sections 506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 – complainant appears in person on video conference, and accepts notice. She declines the assistance of counsel, including Legal Aid counsel. 3. The petitioner is present on video conference, and has been identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also identified by the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 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 25/05/2026 at 11:35:11 CRL.M.C. 197/2026 Page 2 of 5 5. The marriage between the petitioner and the daughter of respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 22.01.2018. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 25.10.2020. No child was born from the wedlock. 6. Subsequently, the impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against her son-in-law [petitioner herein], alleging that he had been abusing and threatening her over phone calls and WhatsApp messages, and was following her and her daughter. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 506/509/354D of the IPC. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably settled their disputes, as recorded in a Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.10.2022. The settlement records that the daughter of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have decided to part ways, and that respondent No. 2 shall cooperate in seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. 8. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between the petitioner and the daughter of respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, passed by the Family Court on 09.08.2023. 9. Respondent No. 2, who is present on video conference, states that the allegations, including those under Section 354D of the IPC, were made in the backdrop of the matrimonial dispute between her daughter and the petitioner, and that she does not wish to pursue the same. The daughter of respondent No. 2 is also present on video conference, and states that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR against her ex- husband. The parties further confirm that the settlement has been entered 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 25/05/2026 at 11:35:11 CRL.M.C. 197/2026 Page 3 of 5 into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. 10. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 11. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC], 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. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them 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 25/05/2026 at 11:35:11 CRL.M.C. 197/2026 Page 4 of 5 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.] Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], 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. 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 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 25/05/2026 at 11:35:11 CRL.M.C. 197/2026 Page 5 of 5 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 between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 13. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 147/2021 dated 20.03.2021, registered at Police Station Dwarka North, Delhi, under Sections 506/509 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J MAY 21, 2026/SS/KA/ 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 25/05/2026 at 11:35:11