Sh Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010481522026
+ CRL.M.C. 7491/2026
SH MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Mr.
Bachu Jaiswal, Advs. along with
petitioners in person.
versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mr. Mayank Chaudhary
and Mohd. Naved, Advs.
SI Sawan Kumar (through v/c)
R-2 in person (through v/c)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)] seeks quashing of FIR No.0439/2020
dated 31.08.2020, registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, District North-
East, Delhi, under Sections 498-A/406/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
together with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The factual conspectus is that the respondent no.2 and the petitioner
no.1 were married on 04.02.2016 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
No child was born out of the said wedlock. They have been living separately
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7491/2026 Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:57:32

since 2019.
3. The FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent no.2. Certain
allegations were made as regards misrepresentation about the employment
and immovable properties of petitioner no.1, as also as regards the
respondent no.2 having been subjected to cruelty, demand of dowry and
threats. The chargesheet has been filed.
4. It transpires that on 16.03.2023, a settlement was arrived at between
the parties in the course of proceedings before the family court.
5. The relevant terms of the said settlement are as under:

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7491/2026 Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:57:32

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7491/2026 Page 3 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:57:32

6. In terms of the said settlement, it was agreed that the marriage
between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 would be dissolved by a
decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, and that the petitioner no.1 would pay a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of all
her claims arising out of the marriage.
7. The respondent no.2 has joined the proceedings virtually.
8. The petitioners are present in person. The father of the respondent
no.2 is present in person.
9. The respondent no.2 submits that she has entered into the aforesaid
settlement out of her own free will and volition, and without any pressure,
coercion or undue influence, and that she has no objection to the quashing of
the subject FIR qua all the petitioners.
10. It also transpires that out of the settlement amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, a

sum of Rs.2,50,000/- already stands paid, namely, Rs.1,00,000/- at the time
of recording of the statement in the first motion and Rs.1,50,000/- at the
time of recording of the statement in the second motion.
11. A demand draft for the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is handed over
to the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 in Court today. The entire
settlement amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has accordingly been received by the
respondent no.2.
12. Considering that the allegations arise out of a matrimonial
relationship and the disputes between the parties stand resolved, this Court
finds no impediment in allowing the present petition.
13. 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 was
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7491/2026 Page 4 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:57:32

observed 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.”
14. 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:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7491/2026 Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:57:32

“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
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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7491/2026 Page 6 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:57:32

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.”
15. 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.
16. In the circumstances, the settlement agreement between the parties
”
provides a cogent basis for quashing the aforementioned FIR. The
prosecution arises out of private matrimonial disputes, which the parties
have voluntarily resolved. Therefore, the continuation of the prosecution
would serve no fruitful purpose.
17. Accordingly, in view of the joint request of the parties, and
considering the dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the present
petition is allowed; FIR No.0439/2020 dated 31.08.2020, registered at Police
Station Gokul Puri, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections 498-
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7491/2026 Page 7 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:57:32

A/406/420/506/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, together with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom,
qua all the petitioners, stands quashed.
18. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.


SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/ cl,sd




Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7491/2026 Page 8 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:57:32