Mohit Tandon & Ors. vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 03.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010530292026
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026, CRL.M.A. 34572/2026
+
MOHIT TANDON & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikas Mann and Mr. Harsh Malik,
Advs.
Mr. Umang Aditya Singh and Ms.
Jyoti Sharma, Advs. for petitioner
no.2.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mohd. Naved and Mr.
Mayank Chaudhary, Advs.
Mr. Umang Aditya Singh, Adv. for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. By way of the present petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) [corresponding to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)], the petitioners seek
quashing of FIR No.1217/2022, dated 16.09.2022, registered at PS Rani
Bagh, Delhi, under Sections498A/406/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 1 of 10

(“IPC”), and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The present petition has
been filed on the basis of a Settlement Agreement.
2. The factual conspectus is that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 got
married on 26.04.2021 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.Soon
thereafter, matrimonial differences arose between petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2. These differences culminated into the respondent no.2 filing
a complaint against petitioner no.1. The subject FIR, registered on the basis of
this complaint, contains allegations of dowry demands, cruelty and retention
of stridhan, and eviction of respondent no.2 from the matrimonial home in
July, 2021.
3. An allegation of inappropriate touching, constituting the basis of the
offence under Section 354 IPC, is also made against petitioner no.2, i.e. , the
brother of petitioner no.1.
4. The investigation stands completed and a charge-sheet under Sections
498A/406/354/34 IPC has been filed.
5. It is informed during the course of hearing that petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2 have reconciled their matrimonial differences and are now
residing together. It is further stated that a child has been born out of the
wedlock. A Settlement Deed/Agreementdated 26.06.2024 is stated to have
been executed, pursuant to mediation under the aegis of the Mediation Centre,
Rohini District Courts. The proceedings as drawn up before the Mediation
Centrehave been appended as Annexure-3 to the present petition. The same
reads as under:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 2 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 3 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 4 of 10

6. The facts and circumstances of the present case demonstrably reveal
that the disputes between the parties were largely matrimonial in nature and
have been resolved by way of the aforesaid settlement. Consequently, the
petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 are stated to be peacefully living together
since July, 2024.
7. It is noticed that the charges in the instant matter have not yet been
framed and that the continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful
purpose and would only disturb the reconciliation between the parties.
8. 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
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

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 5 of 10

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.”

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

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 6 of 10

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.

”
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

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 7 of 10

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. The allegation under Section 354 IPC against petitioner no.2 is no
doubt serious. This Court, while being conscious of the gravity of the offence,
is of the view that the continuation of the proceedings, even against petitioner
no.2, is unwarranted. The allegation intrinsically forms part of the same
complaint arising out of the matrimonial discord between petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2, and does not stand apart from that dispute.
12. The respondent no.2, who is present in Court today, submits that she
does not wish to proceed further against any of the petitioners, including
petitioner no.2. She has also stated on affidavit, and has affirmed before this
Court, that her decision is voluntary and free from any pressure or coercion.
13. Additionally, it is informed that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2
live separately from their in-laws in an independent accommodation.
14. Given these circumstances, continuation of the present proceedings
against petitioner no.2 would be an exercise in futility. Reference may be
made to the following judgments in which, in a similar conspectus, this Court
took the view that even with allegations of the kind made in the present case,
the same would not preclude a settlement, if warranted in view of the
attendant facts and circumstances.
15. In Jagvinder Singh Kushal & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi &Anr. ,
CRL.M.C. 6252/2025, decided on 20.02.2026, where one of the petitioners
had been charge-sheeted under Section 354 of the IPC in a matrimonial

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 8 of 10

dispute, this Court held as under:
“9. Although the offences under Sections 354 and 498A of the IPC are
non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain
circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section
482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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.
*
11. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a
matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a settlement.
As petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since reconciled, the
continuance of the criminal proceedings would only impede their
married life. Respondent No. 2 has stated that the allegations under
Section 354 of the IPC emanated out of a misunderstanding, in the wake
of the matrimonial disputes. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme
Court, it may be observed that 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 .
”
16. Similarly, in Subhash Chikkara v. State NCT of Delhi &Anr. ,
CRL.M.C. 9055/2025, decided on 26.02.2026, this Court observed as under:
“ 13. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of
a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of
divorce. Respondent No. 2 has stated that the allegations under Sections
377 and 354 of the IPC were a result of the breakdown of the
matrimonial relationship, and that she does not wish to prosecute these
allegations further. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it
may be observed that 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.
”
17. In the circumstances, the settlement agreement between the parties
provides a cogent basis for quashing the aforementioned FIR. The

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 9 of 10

prosecution arises out of private matrimonial disputes, which the parties have
voluntarily resolved. Therefore, the continuation of the prosecution would
serve no fruitful purpose.
18. Accordingly, in view of the joint request of the parties, and considering
the dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court finds no
impediment in allowing the present petition. Consequently, FIR
No.1217/2022 dated 16.09.2022, registered at PS Rani Bagh, Delhi, under
Sections 498A/406/354/34 IPC, together with all proceedings emanating
therefrom, stands quashed qua all the petitioners.
19. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.


SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/ cl,sd





Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:19:23
CRL.M.C. 8248/2026 Page 10 of 10