Delhi High Court – Orders
Sh. Manish Kumar & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 3 August, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~103
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010346402026
+ W.P.(CRL) 2289/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23074/2026
SH. MANISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gulshan Kumar, Mr. Amit
Baghel, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC with Mr.
Sangeet Sibou, Ms. Priya Rai, Mr.
Shubham Goyal, Mr. Aniket
Kumar Singh, Mr. Priyansh Raj
Singh, Advs
SI Udit, PS-Ranhola.
Mr. Lalit Mohan, Advocate for R-
2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 03.08.2026
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, read with 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.
306/2023, dated 01.05.2023, registered at Police Station Ranhola, Outer
District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 [“IPC“], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of
settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned Additional Standing
W.P.(CRL) 2289/2026 Page 1 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:35:57
Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of State, and Mr. Lalit Mohan, learned
counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by
their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent
No. 2 is also present in Court and has been identified by her learned
counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.
4. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 09.12.2020
in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Owing to matrimonial
discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living
separately since 08.07.2021. One son was born out of the wedlock on
31.01.2022.
5. The impugned FIR came to be registered at the instance of
respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of petitioner
No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner
Nos. 3 and 4 are stated to be his relatives.
6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against
Women Cell, which culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR.
7. I am informed that chargesheet has not yet been filed.
8. The parties have thereafter entered into a settlement, recorded in a
settlement agreement dated 02.09.2024, whereby they agreed to resolve
all their matrimonial disputes arising out of the marriage, including issues
relating to stridhan, permanent alimony, dowry articles and past, present
and future maintenance, for a total settlement amount of Rs.12,50,000/-.
In terms of the settlement, the amount was agreed to be paid in three
instalments, namely, Rs.4,00,000/- at the time of recording of statements
in the first motion petition, Rs.4,50,000/- at the time of recording of the
W.P.(CRL) 2289/2026 Page 2 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:35:57
second motion petition, and the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- at the
time of quashing of the impugned FIR. It was further agreed that the
permanent custody of the minor child shall remain with respondent No. 2,
and petitioner No. 1 shall not claim any visitation rights.
9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a
decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 06.09.2025, passed
by the Family Courts.
11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
12. It is well settled that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts may, in
exercise of their inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), quash criminal proceedings,
including those involving non-compoundable offences, where the parties
have amicably resolved their disputes and no overriding public interest
would be adversely affected.
13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has
held as follows:
“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 is1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
W.P.(CRL) 2289/2026 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:35:57
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 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
2
prescribed.”
Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the
Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while
accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings.
The relevant observations in the said decision read 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 of2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
W.P.(CRL) 2289/2026 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:35:57
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
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.”4
14. In the present case, the dispute emanates from a matrimonial
relationship, which has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce.
Respondent No. 2 has appeared before this Court and unequivocally
affirmed that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any
4
Emphasis supplied.
W.P.(CRL) 2289/2026 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:35:57
coercion or undue influence. Having regard to the principles laid down by
the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the possibility of the
proceedings culminating in a conviction is remote. In such circumstances,
permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would serve no useful
purpose and would only result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial
time and public resources.
15. In terms of the settlement, respondent No. 2 is entitled to a total
settlement amount of Rs.12,50,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of
Rs.8,50,000/- has already been paid, while the balance amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today.
Accordingly, the terms of the settlement stand fully complied with, and
there remains no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed.
Consequently, FIR No. 306/2023 dated 01.05.2023, registered at Police
Station Ranhola, Outer District, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongwith all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, stands quashed.
17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
18. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands
disposed of.
19. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order
will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody
remains with respondent No. 2.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
AUGUST 3, 2026/’B’/SD/
W.P.(CRL) 2289/2026 Page 6 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:35:57
