Vishal Mathur & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010519012026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026
VISHAL MATHUR & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, Mr. Amit
Yadav and Ms. Ishika, Advs.
Petitioner nos.1 and 2 in person.
Petitioner nos.3 and 4 in person
(through v/c)
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, SC and Ms.
Priyanshi, PS Farash Bazar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 33900/2026 -EX(FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNX.)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026
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 ”) seeking quashing of FIR No. 0147/2025
dated 11.03.2025 registered at P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi under Sections 498-
A/ 406/ 506/ 354/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“ IPC ”) and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. The present petition has been founded on a Settlement Agreement
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 1 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
dated 15.05.2026 arrived at between the parties under the aegis of the
Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The same is appended as
Annexure P-3 to the present petition, and inter alia , reads as under: -
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 2 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 3 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 4 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 5 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
5. The concerned FIR alleges dowry demands, cruelty and retention of
stridhan against all the petitioners. Against petitioner no.2, there are, in
addition, allegations attracting section 354 IPC. The settlement agreement
contemplates payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the respondent no.2. It is stated
that the entire amount has already been paid to the respondent no.2.
6. The respondent no.2 confirms that the settlement was arrived at
voluntarily, without any fear or coercion, and that she has no objection to the
subject FIR being quashed.
7. As far as the allegations under Sections 498-A/406/506 IPC are
concerned, they arise purely out of the matrimonial relationship, and, there
is no impediment in acceding to the quashing of the subject FIR on the basis
of the inter se settlement. Admittedly, the matrimonial disputes have been
resolved in terms thereof.
8. This Court is conscious that the allegations against petitioner no.2
under Section 354 IPC are serious and that the said offence is not
compoundable. Nonetheless, having interacted with the respondent no.2, this
Court is nonetheless of the view that continuation of the proceedings even
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 6 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
against petitioner no.2 is unwarranted for the following reasons:-
i. The respondent no.2 has categorically stated that the allegations were
made under a misunderstanding and that she does not wish to pursue
the FIR against any of the petitioners, including the petitioner no.2;
ii. The allegations against petitioner no.2 are not an independent
incident. They form part of the same complaint and arise out of the
same matrimonial discord;
iii. The settlement between the parties is a comprehensive one. The
marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce
by mutual consent dated 19.08.2026 passed by the Family Court-02,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the settlement amount has been paid
in full. Continuing the prosecution against the petitioner no.2 alone
would compel the complainant to depose against her own wishes,
years after the relationship between the parties has ended.
9. In any event, given the categorical position of the respondent no.2, the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak, and continuation of the
proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
10. Reference in this regard may be placed upon the judgment rendered
by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC
303, wherein the Court has observed as under:
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised
in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR
may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 7 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such
like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In
this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding.”
11. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466, the
Supreme Court has 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:
*
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 8 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
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.
*
29.4. 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.
12. Applying the aforesaid principles, the allegations under Sections 498-
A/406/506 IPC arise out of the matrimonial relationship and are private/
civil in nature. The allegation under Section 354 IPC against petitioner no.2
is part of the same complaint and the same marital discord. The parties have
resolved their entire dispute, the marriage stands dissolved, and respondent
no.2 has unequivocally stated that she does not wish to pursue the FIR.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 0147/2025 dated
11.03.2025 registered at P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi under Sections 498-A/ 406/
506/ 354/ 34 IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed, subject to payment of costs as directed hereinbelow.
14. Since considerable judicial time has been consumed pursuant to
registration of the FIR, the petitioner/s shall pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC). Learned counsel
for the petitioner no.2 accedes to the same and submits that the same shall be
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 9 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55
deposited within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit shall
be filed in the Registry of this Court.
15. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ uk
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3388/2026 Page 10 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:36:55