Sachin And Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
#
Date of Decision : 15.10.2026
CNR No. DLHC010302942026
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20560/2026
SACHIN AND ORS. .....Petitioner
+
Through: Mr. Siddharth Rai Sethi and Mr. Sunny
Chhikara, Advocates along with
petitioners.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mr.Mayank and Mohd.
Naved, Advocates
SI Sunil and SI Jitender PS Nangloi.
Mr.Prafulla, Mr. Pankaj Sharma and
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocates.
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. 228/2019, registered at Police Station Nangloi, Outer
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, which was initially made before the Crime Against Women Cell.
Respondent no.2 was married to petitioner no.1. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 are,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 1 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
respectively, her father-in-law and mother-in-law; petitioner no.4 is her
brother-in-law; and petitioner no.5 is her aunt-in-law.
3. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married on 11.02.2013
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi. One daughter was born out
of the said wedlock on 29.11.2014, who is in the care and custody of
respondent no.2. On account of temperamental differences, the parties have
been living separately since June 2021.
4. The complainant alleged, inter alia , cruelty, ill treatment and demand of
dowry. It is pointed out that the matter was referred to mediation by the learned
Trial Court, namely, the court of Ms. Deepika Goyal Shokeen, learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court-03), West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. A
settlement is stated to have been arrived at between the parties on 18.02.2025
under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in
Mediation No. 9381/2025.
5. The mediation report/settlement agreement has been appended as
Annexure-C to the present petition. The same reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 2 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 3 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 4 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
6. 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 30.07.2025,
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 5 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
Courts, Delhi, in HMA No. 1847/2025. A copy of the decree has been placed
on record as Annexure-D (colly).
7. Out of the settled sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
already stands paid to respondent no.2, as recorded in the judgment of the
learned Family Court dated 30.07.2025 and in the joint statement of the parties,
viz. , Rs.25,000/- towards the first instalment; Rs.75,000/- by way of demand
draft bearing no.395196 dated 16.04.2025, at the time of the first motion;
Rs.25,000/- on 08.05.2025 towards the third instalment; and Rs.75,000/- by
way of demand draft bearing no.395393 dated 30.06.2025, at the time of the
second motion.
8. A demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the outstanding amount
payable under the settlement agreement has been handed over to the respondent
no.2 in Court today. The respondent no.2 affirms the receipt of the same, and
confirms that the entire settlement amount of Rs.3,00,000/- now stands paid to
her.
9. The respondent no.2, who is present in Court, further states that the
settlement was entered into voluntarily, out of her own free will and volition,
without any pressure or coercion or undue influence from any quarter, and that
she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the proceedings emanating
therefrom against the petitioners.
10. It is further averred in the petition that all other litigation between the
parties, including the complaint filed by respondent no.2 under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, bearing MC No.
671/2022, stands withdrawn, and that the present FIR is the only proceeding
which remains pending between them.
11. The petitioners as well as respondent no.2 have been duly identified by
the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) in Court today.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 6 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
12. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power,
preserved by Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973), may quash criminal proceedings arising out of
matrimonial disputes where the parties have genuinely settled their disputes
and the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the
court, or where quashing would secure the ends of justice. The power so
preserved is distinct from, and is not circumscribed by, the power of
compounding conferred upon a criminal court. Reference in this regard may be
made 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 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 7 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 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 pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on 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,
High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of
the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 8 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end
and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.
”
13. Specifically in the context of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court
in Jitendra 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.
”
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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 9 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
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.”
15. 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 the wrong complained of
is essentially private and personal in nature; the offences alleged do not fall
within the category of heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, or
offences such as murder, rape or dacoity, which are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society. 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 10 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08
voluntarily seeks closure. All other proceedings inter se the parties stand
withdrawn. Respondent no.2, who is the principal witness to the alleged acts of
cruelty and ill treatment, no longer supports the prosecution; the possibility of
conviction is, therefore, remote and bleak. In these circumstances, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings would only result in protracted
litigation without serving any useful purpose, and would amount to an abuse of
the process of the court.
16. As such, applying the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian
Singh (supra), Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), FIR
No. 228/2019 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, at Police
Station Nangloi, Outer District, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, stands quashed qua all the petitioners.
17. 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/
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4900/2026 Page 11 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:15:08