Sonu Singh And Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
#
CNR No. DLHC010501462026
Date of Decision : 15.10.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 & CRL.M.A. 32691/2026
SONU SINGH AND ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. P. Singh and Mr. Dinesh,
Advocates along with petitioners.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State along with
SI Joginder and SI Chetan, PS Paschim
Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) (corresponding to
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)), seeking
quashing of FIR No. 580/2022 dated 22.06.2022, registered at Police Station
Paschim Vihar, West District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) (corresponding to Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5),
respectively, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), together with all
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of the respondent
no.2, who was married to the petitioner no.1 on 14.05.2014 in New Delhi,
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies; the other petitioners are her in-laws,
petitioner no.2 being her mother-in-law and petitioner no.3 her brother-in-law.
No child was born out of the said wedlock. The parties have been residing
separately since 25.08.2019. Matrimonial differences arose between petitioner
no.1 and respondent no.2, which led to the registration of the aforesaid FIR.
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
3. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against
the petitioners before the learned Trial Court, wherein Sections 323 and 506 of
the IPC have additionally been invoked, in addition to the offences under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC for which the FIR was registered.
4. One of the accused i.e. father-in-law of respondent no.2, namely, Sultan
Singh (the husband of petitioner no.2 and the father of petitioner nos.1 and 3),
has since passed away. He is not a petitioner before this Court, and the
proceedings qua him stand abated.
5. A settlement is stated to have been arrived at between the parties under
the aegis of the Counselling Cell of the Family Court (West District), Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Case No. MT-284/22. The said settlement bears the
date 09.02.2024 and is stated to have been signed by the parties on 09.04.2025.
The settlement/counselling report has been appended as Annexure-P-5 to the
present petition. The same reads as under:
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
6. In sum, in terms of the aforesaid settlement, petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2 agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), and petitioner no.1
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent no.2 in full and final
settlement of all her claims, in three instalments of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-
and Rs.1,00,000/-, payable at the time of the first motion, the second motion
and the quashing of the FIR, respectively. It was further agreed that all matters
relating to the marriage, whether civil or criminal, stood settled, and that
respondent no.2 would cooperate in the quashing of the FIR.
7. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent
under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, dated 09.04.2025,
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
in HMA No. 883/2025. A copy of the decree has been placed on record as
Annexure-P6.
8. A demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- towards outstanding amount payable
under the settlement agreement has been handed over to the respondent no.2
during the course of the hearing today. The respondent no.2 affirms the receipt
of the same. The entire settlement amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has, accordingly,
been paid.
9. She further states that the settlement was entered into voluntarily,
without any pressure or coercion, and that she has no objection to the quashing
of the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners.
She has also filed an affidavit cum no objection to the aforesaid effect, which
forms part of the record.
10. The petitioners and respondent no.2 undertake to remain bound by the
terms of the aforesaid settlement. It is also stated in the petition that, apart from
the present FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom, no other litigation
remains pending between the parties, the proceedings under Section 125 of the
CrPC having been settled.
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
11. The petitioners as well as respondent no.2 have been duly identified by
the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.).
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,
and the offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable at
the instance of the person to whom the hurt is caused and the person
intimidated, respectively (Section 320 of the CrPC, now Section 359 of the
BNSS). However, the power of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS
(earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from
the power of compounding conferred on a court, and is not limited by it.
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 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
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
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 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
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
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.”
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
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
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. In the instant petition, this Court has taken due consideration of the
nature of the allegations, and the terms and implementation of the settlement.
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 such as murder, rape or dacoity. The
matrimonial relationship between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 has
ended by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The agreed payment
has been made, and the complainant/respondent no.2 voluntarily seeks closure.
There is no issue from the marriage, and the parties have been living separately
since 25.08.2019. Respondent no.2, who is present in Court, has affirmed the
settlement and the receipt of the entire settlement amount, and has filed an
affidavit of no objection. In these circumstances, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings would only result in protracted litigation without serving
any useful purpose.
17. As such, applying the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian
Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra), and Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra),
FIR No. 580/2022 dated 22.06.2022, registered under Sections 498A/406/34
IPC at PS Paschim Vihar, West District, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08
therefrom, stand quashed qua all the petitioners.
18. The petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. The pending
application also stands disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
at/sd
OCTOBER 15, 2026/
CRL.M.C. 7839/2026 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:18:08