Kanihya Lal & Ors. vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.

$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 14 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010498602026
+ CRL.M.C. 7804/2026 & CRL.M.A. 32539/2026
KANIHYA LAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohd. Hamza with
Mr. Himanshu Yogi, Mr. Bharat, Mr.
Jitendra Kumar, Mr. Pritam Kumar
Rahi, Mr. Jitender Yadav and Mr.
Bhim Pratap Singh, Advocates.
(M): 7048923585
Email:
[email protected]
m
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR......Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP with
Mr. Siddharth Shankar Jha and Ms.
Kalpana Jha, Advocates for the
State.
(M): 9810442918
9968257999
Email: [email protected]
Ms. Chinki Guliya, Advocate for
respondent no. 2.
SI Ankit Kumar, PS Jahangir Puri.
(M): 8586923012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 1 of 5

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking quashing of the First
th
Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 1098/2021 dated 28 December,
2021, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Jahangir Puri, North West District,
Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”),
on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (“APP”) appearing for the State, i.e., respondent no. 1, as well as
by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
3. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 are present before this Court, and
are duly identified by their respective counsels as well as the IO, who is also
present before this Court.
4. The captioned petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the
parties.
5. As per the material on record, the relevant facts for adjudication of the
captioned petition are as under:
5.1. The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was
th
solemnized on 11 December, 2019, however, due to temperamental
th
differences, they started living separately from 28 August, 2020.
5.2. FIR No. 1098/2021 came to be registered after a complaint was made
by respondent no. 2 to the Crime Against Women (“CAW”) Cell, Delhi,
against petitioner no. 1 and his family members, namely, petitioner no. 2 is
her father-in-law; petitioner no. 3 is her mother-in-law; and petitioner no. 4 is
her sister-in-law.
5.3. Respondent no. 2 has alleged, inter alia , that the petitioners harassed
and threatened her on multiple occasions in connection with demands for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 2 of 5

dowry.
6. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 jointly submit that they have
resolved all their disputes, as petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have
th
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) dated 25 March, 2026,
before the Rohini Courts, Delhi.
7. This Court is informed that as per the terms of the aforesaid MoU,
petitioner no. 1 is required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent no. 2,
by way of three instalments.
8. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- has already been paid to respondent no. 2 by
petitioner no. 1. A Demand Draft in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been paid
today to respondent no. 2, which has been duly accepted by her.
9. Upon interaction with respondent no. 2, she submits that she has settled
the matter and does not wish to pursue the present proceedings any further.
10. This Court is informed that no child was born out of the wedlock
between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2.
11. This Court is further informed that the marriage between petitioner no.
1 and respondent no. 2 already stands dissolved, as they have obtained a
th
decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 29 July, 2026, passed by the
Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in HMA 1300/2026.
12. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the present FIR.
13. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the nature of the
dispute and the fact that the parties have settled their disputes, the State has
no objection to the present petition.
14. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
notes that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the present
matter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 3 of 5

15. It is well settled that 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 with respect to non-compoundable
offences, if the concerned parties have arrived at a compromise or settlement,
and particularly when no overarching public interest is adversely affected by
quashing the same.
16. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Versus Babita Raghuvanshi and
Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 , the Supreme Court has held that High Courts are
empowered to quash an FIR in cases pertaining to matrimonial disputes in
order to foster genuine settlements, even when the offences involved are non-
compoundable in nature. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as
under:
“xxx xxx xxx
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.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 4 of 5

17. Similarly, in Rangappa Javoor Versus State of Karnataka and
Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1736 , the Supreme Court has held as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
8. It is apparent that the parties have resolved and settled their
disputes. In the facts of the caes, we do not feel that any useful
purpose would be served by continuation of the prosecution.
The appellant - Rangappa Javoor, who is an officer in the
Border Security Force and as per the job requirement, has to
serve in different parts of the country, would be put to
harassment. This court has held that in cases of offences
relating to matrimonial disputes, if the Court is satisfied that
the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then
for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal
proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed by exercising the
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or even
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present
th
case, FIR No. 1098/2021 dated 28 December, 2021, registered at Police
Station PS Jahangir Puri, North West District, Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPC, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are
hereby quashed.
19. The present petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of
in the aforesaid terms.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026
c
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 5 of 5