Sh Sooraj Saini And Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Another

Court
Delhi High Court

$~106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 14.10.2026
CNR No. DLHC010499352026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3267/2026, Crl.M.A. Nos.32576/2026, 32577/2026
SH SOORAJ SAINI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Rajshri Sharma, Ms. Kanchan and
Ms. Jyoti, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, SC, Criminal,
GNCTD.
Mr. Manoj and Mr. Banke Bihari,
Advs. for R-2 along with R-2.
ASI Sunita, PS Alipur, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J ( Oral .)

1. Issue notice. Learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
State.
2. The respondent no.2, who is present in Court, also accepts notice.
3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)(corresponding to Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)).
4. The petitioner no.1 is the erstwhile husband of respondent no.2. The
petitioner nos.2 to 5 are the erstwhile in-laws of respondent no.2.
5. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.0412/2024 dated 28.06.2024,
under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)
W.P.(CRL.)3267/2026 Page 1 of 7



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:07:26

(corresponding to Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5), respectively, of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), registered at Police Station Alipur, Outer North
District, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The FIR was
registered on the complaint of the respondent no.2. No charge-sheet has been
filed so far.
6. The marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was
solemnized on 18.02.2022 at Delhi, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
No child was born out of the said wedlock. The parties have been living
separately since January 2023. By virtue of a settlement dated 17.08.2024,
arrived at before the Counselling Cell, Family Court, West District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, the parties have settled all their matrimonial disputes
amicably.
7. Under the settlement, the petitioner no.1 agreed to pay to the

respondent no.2 a total sum of Rs.2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty-Five
Thousand only), in three instalments, and to return her articles, towards full
and final settlement of all her claims. It was specifically agreed that the
respondent no.2 would cooperate in the quashing of the instant FIR.
8. It has been submitted by the parties that a sum of Rs.1.6 Lakhs already
stands paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement
contemplates that the remaining amount of Rs.85,000/- would be paid at the
time of quashing of the subject FIR.
9. During the course of the hearing today, a bank draft for Rs.85,000/- has
been handed over to the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 confirms
receipt thereof.The petitioners and the respondent no.2 have been identified
by the concerned Investigating Officer (IO), who is present in Court.
10. The respondent no.2 submits that she has settled her disputes with the
W.P.(CRL.)3267/2026 Page 2 of 7



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:07:26

petitioners voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence. She also
affirms that she has received the entire amount, as contemplated in the
settlement between the parties. She categorically states that she does not wish
to pursue the FIR and has no objection to its quashing.She has also filed an
affidavit to the said effect, which is on record.
11. The petitioners and the respondent no.2 undertake to remain bound by
the terms of the aforesaid settlement dated 17.08.2024. It is also stated that no
other litigation remains pending between the parties, and that the present FIR
is the only proceeding that survives between them.
12. This Court is conscious that the offence under Section 498A of the IPC
is non-compoundable, whereas the offence under Section 406 of the IPC is
compoundable by the owner of the property with the permission of the Court
(Section 320(2) of the CrPC, now Section 359(2) of the BNSS). However, the
power of this Court to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct from the power of compounding conferred on a
criminal court, and is not circumscribed thereby.
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 has
been held that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimony or family
disputes, where the wrong is 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:
“ 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
W.P.(CRL.)3267/2026 Page 3 of 7



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:07:26

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:
“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
W.P.(CRL.)3267/2026 Page 4 of 7



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:07:26

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
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”
W.P.(CRL.)3267/2026 Page 5 of 7



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:07:26

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. Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC (Section 85 of the
BNS) is non-compoundable, the aforesaid principles apply with equal force to
the exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, which
corresponds to Section 482 of the CrPC. In the present case, the FIR arises out
of a matrimonial relationship and is essentially private in nature; the offences
alleged do not fall in the category of heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity, or offences like murder, rape or dacoity. The parties have amicably
resolved all their disputes in terms of the settlement dated 17.08.2024; the
marriage stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated
20.03.2025, and there is no issue from the said wedlock; the entire settlement
W.P.(CRL.)3267/2026 Page 6 of 7



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:07:26

amount of Rs.2,45,000/- stands paid, and it is stated that the articles of the
respondent no.2 have also been returned to her; and the respondent no.2, who
is present in Court, has confirmed the settlement and the receipt of the entire
amount, and has also filed an affidavit of no objection. No charge-sheet has
been filed, and the investigation has not culminated in a report under Section
173 of the CrPC. In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak, and the continuation of the proceedings would be an
exercise in futility.
17. In the circumstances, the settlement 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.
The performance of the financial and other settlement obligations, together
with the consent of the respondent no.2, supports the conclusion that the
continuation of the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.
18. In terms of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh
(supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra), there is
no impediment in acceding to the request of the petitioners to quash the FIR
No.0412/2024 and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
19. Accordingly, FIR No.0412/2024 dated 28.06.2024, registered at Police
Station Alipur, Outer North District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC,
and all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua all the petitioners, are quashed.
20. The petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of in the
above terms.


SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026/ cl,sd

W.P.(CRL.)3267/2026 Page 7 of 7



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:07:26