$~28 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011011012025 + CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 DHARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocates alongwith Petitioners in Person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI.) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP SI Sonia Mr. Akshit Aggarwal, Advocate. for R2 alongwith R-2 in Person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 19.08.2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present 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. 728/2022 dated 06.09.2022, registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, North West, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 1 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Akshit Aggarwal, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and is identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 05.06.2021, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and no child was born from the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 20.09.2021. 6. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are his brother and sister, respectively. Petitioner No. 6 is the husband of the paternal aunt of petitioner No. 1. 7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on 11.12.2021, pursuant to which the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners herein. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved all their disputes by way of a Settlement Deed dated 03.03.2025, albeit without any monetary consideration.

9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, with the free consent of the parties, and without CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 2 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 any coercion, undue influence, or pressure. 10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, vide order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the learned Family Court. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts may exercise their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably settled their dispute, particularly where such quashing would not adversely affect any overriding public interest. 13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 3 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 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.”2

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. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 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.”4 14. In the present case, the proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which has since culminated in a decree of divorce. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is significant that respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. In view of the settlement and the parties having brought their matrimonial relationship to an end, the likelihood of the criminal proceedings culminating in a conviction is 4 Emphasis supplied. CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 remote. Their continued prosecution would, therefore, serve no useful purpose and would merely amount to an exercise in futility, while unnecessarily burdening the justice system and consuming public resources.

15. Although there is no monetary settlement between the parties, the marriage was short-lived, and respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that she is satisfied with the terms of the settlement and does not wish to pursue the present proceedings. In view thereof, and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the dispute, there is no impediment to granting the relief sought. 16. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 728/2022 dated 06.09.2022, registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, North West, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18. The petition, alongwith any pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 19, 2026 “pv”/SD/ CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36

$~28 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011011012025 + CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 DHARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocates alongwith Petitioners in Person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI.) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP SI Sonia Mr. Akshit Aggarwal, Advocate. for R2 alongwith R-2 in Person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 19.08.2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present 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. 728/2022 dated 06.09.2022, registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, North West, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 1 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Akshit Aggarwal, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and is identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 05.06.2021, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and no child was born from the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 20.09.2021. 6. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are his brother and sister, respectively. Petitioner No. 6 is the husband of the paternal aunt of petitioner No. 1. 7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on 11.12.2021, pursuant to which the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners herein. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved all their disputes by way of a Settlement Deed dated 03.03.2025, albeit without any monetary consideration.

9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, with the free consent of the parties, and without CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 2 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 any coercion, undue influence, or pressure. 10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, vide order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the learned Family Court. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts may exercise their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably settled their dispute, particularly where such quashing would not adversely affect any overriding public interest. 13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 3 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 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.”2

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. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 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.”4 14. In the present case, the proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which has since culminated in a decree of divorce. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is significant that respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. In view of the settlement and the parties having brought their matrimonial relationship to an end, the likelihood of the criminal proceedings culminating in a conviction is 4 Emphasis supplied. CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36 remote. Their continued prosecution would, therefore, serve no useful purpose and would merely amount to an exercise in futility, while unnecessarily burdening the justice system and consuming public resources.

15. Although there is no monetary settlement between the parties, the marriage was short-lived, and respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that she is satisfied with the terms of the settlement and does not wish to pursue the present proceedings. In view thereof, and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the dispute, there is no impediment to granting the relief sought. 16. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 728/2022 dated 06.09.2022, registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, North West, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18. The petition, alongwith any pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 19, 2026 “pv”/SD/ CRL.M.C. 8948/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:36