Nitesh Kumar Sharma And Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr

$~98
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No.DLHC010065532026
Date of Decision : 04.11.2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 614/2026, CRL.M.A. 5829/2026
NITESH KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kunal Bhatia, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha (ASC) along with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini
Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Mrs.
Chavi Lazarus, Advs.
SI Mahesh Sharma (P.S. Badarpur)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL)

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 ( pari materia to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 466/2024, dated
19.09.2024, registered at P.S. Badarpur, South-East District, Delhi, under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “ IPC ”),
and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of Settlement
Agreement, dated 17.09.2025, entered into between petitioner no. 1
(husband) and respondent no. 2 (wife/complainant). The same is appended
as Annexure-A3 to the present petition
2. The factual conspectus is that the petitioner no.1 (husband) married
respondent no. 2 (wife/complainant) on 22.02.2023 according to Hindu rites
and ceremonies. The parties have been living separately since 30.06.2023.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 1 of 12

No child was born from the said wedlock.
3. On a complaint by respondent no. 2 (wife) to the Crime Against
Women (CAW) Cell, the aforesaid FIR was registered with allegations of
dowry demands, harassment, and retention of articles given to respondent
no. 2 (wife) at the time of marriage.
4. It is noticed that the aforesaid Settlement Agreement was arrived at
pursuant to mediation conducted under the aegis of Mediation Centre, Saket
Court, New Delhi. The mediation proceedings of 17.09.2025 incorporating
the settlement read as follows:


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 2 of 12

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 3 of 12

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 4 of 12

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 5 of 12

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 6 of 12

5. Subsequently, the marriage between petitioner no. 1 (husband) and
respondent no. 2 (wife) also stands dissolved by way of decree of divorce by
mutual consent on 07.01.2026 in HMA No. 2443/2025.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 7 of 12

6. Respondent no. 2 (wife/complainant) has joined the proceedings
virtually and is identified by the concerned Investigating Officer (IO), who
is present in Court. Respondent no. 2 (wife/complainant) states that she has
received the entire amount and the motorcycle, as contemplated by the
aforesaid Settlement Agreement (reproduced hereinabove). She also submits
that the settlement was voluntary and she has no objection to the quashing of
the aforesaid FIR. The petitioners (husband and in-laws) have also been duly
identified by the Investigating Officer (IO).
7. It is noticed that the offences alleged arise out of a matrimonial
relationship that lasted for only four (4) months, and are essentially private
in nature.
8. Moreover, the settlement was reached before the Mediation Centre,

Saket Court, New Delhi; its voluntariness is inherent in the very nature of
the agreement and the mediation proceedings leading upto it. It is also re-
affirmed by the parties today. Moreover, the settlement has also been acted
upon.
9. 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

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 8 of 12

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. ”
(emphasis supplied)
10. The principles established in Gian Singh (supra) were further
crystallised in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 .
Paragraph 29 of the same reads as follows:
“ 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
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 9 of 12

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
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Specifically in the context of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme
Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi , (2013) 4 SCC 58 ,
remarked 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-

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 10 of 12

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
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
12. The Supreme Court in Navneesh Aggarwal v. State of Haryana , 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1680 , while quashing an FIR under Sections 498A/406 of
the IPC, inter alia , observed as under:
“ 14. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that
where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of
divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective
lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship
ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment . In
the cases of Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal
No. 1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”) and Arun Jain v.
State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9178
of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”), this Court, while
exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial
discord against the husband. The Court took note of the fact that
the couple therein had divorced and held that in such a situation,
to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of
the process of law
. The reasoning adopted therein applies with
equal force to the facts of the present case. … ”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no impediment in
allowing the present petition. Accordingly, in view of the joint request of the
parties, and considering the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the
present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 466/2024, dated 19.09.2024,
registered at P.S. Badarpur, South-East District, Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “ IPC ”), and all

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 11 of 12

proceedings emanating therefrom, qua all the petitioners, stand quashed.
14. The present petition, along with the pending application, stands
disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/ uk/vk


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:45:37
W.P.(CRL) 614/2026 Page 12 of 12