Delhi High Court – Orders
Deepak Alias Deepak Arya & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 16 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 545/2026
DEEPAK ALIAS DEEPAK ARYA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rishi Kumar, Advocate
alongwith petitioners
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with
Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for the
State alongwith SI Madhu Bala,
PS.-Lajpat Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 16.02.2026
CRL.M.A. 5140/2026 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 545/2026
1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Article
226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of FIR No. 305/2023 dated
17.08.2023, registered at Police Station Sunlight Colony, New Delhi,
under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“],
alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground
that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
2. The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their
learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”].
W.P.(CRL) 545/2026 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 18/02/2026 at 20:33:54
Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by the IO.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, learned Additional Standing
Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 is
present in person, and accepts notice. She declines the assistance of
counsel.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties.
5. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2,
who was the wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is the mother of
petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1,
and petitioner No.4 is the sister of petitioner No.1.
6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on
08.02.2019. One child was born from the wedlock on 29.04.2021. Due to
matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties,
they have been living separately since 18.09.2021.
7. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the
Crime Against Women Cell, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was
registered against her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-
in-law.
8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably
settled their disputes by executing a Memorandum of Understanding
dated 21.03.2025. The settlement contemplates the parties resuming
cohabitation alongwith their minor child and to fulfil their matrimonial
obligations with effect from 23.03.2025.
9. The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into
voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Mr. Ansari, on
my request, has also interacted with respondent No. 2, and states that she
W.P.(CRL) 545/2026 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 18/02/2026 at 20:33:54
has reconciled with the petitioners on her free will, and that the parties
have been living together with the minor child for the last 11 months.
10. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
11. Although an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is ordinarily
non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in
appropriate circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their
extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, may quash
criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences
where a mutual compromise has been amicably arrived at between the
parties, particularly when such quashing does not impinge upon any
overriding public interest.
12. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, the Supreme Court 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 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 legal1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
W.P.(CRL) 545/2026 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 18/02/2026 at 20:33:54
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-
2
fast category can be prescribed.”
Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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
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
factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
W.P.(CRL) 545/2026 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 18/02/2026 at 20:33:54
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
4
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
13. In the present case, the dispute between the parties arises out of a
matrimonial relationship, which has since been amicably settled. As
petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have reconciled and resumed
cohabitation, the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve only
to disrupt their marital life, and adversely affect the welfare of their minor
child. In accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court,
it is significant that respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed before
this Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without any
coercion or undue influence. In these circumstances, the continuation of
the criminal proceedings is unlikely to culminate in any conviction and
would operate merely as a procedural formality, thereby imposing an
undue burden on the justice system and diverting public resources
4
Emphasis supplied.
W.P.(CRL) 545/2026 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 18/02/2026 at 20:33:54
without serving any legitimate judicial purpose.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the
settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is allowed.
FIR No. 305/2023 dated 17.08.2023, registered at Police Station Sunlight
Colony, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
15. The petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of.
16. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order
shall not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2026
Dy/AD/
W.P.(CRL) 545/2026 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 18/02/2026 at 20:33:54
