Delhi High Court – Orders
Nishtha Arora @ Nishtha Makkar And Ors vs Manish Makkar on 17 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4836/2026
NISHTHA ARORA @ NISHTHA
MAKKAR AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Vikas Walia,
Advocate.
versus
MANISH MAKKAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar & Mr.
Sumesh Gandhi, Advocates.
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 17.02.2026
1. The petitioners have filed this petition 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 Criminal Complaint No. 2226/2021, dated 15.03.2024,
pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of
settlement.
2. By order dated 09.12.2025, the State was impleaded as respondent
No. 2.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Vikram Singh
CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 20/02/2026 at 20:40:14
Panwar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
4. The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their
learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”].
Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by his
learned counsel and the IO.
5. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on
17.04.2009. One child was born from the wedlock on 14.05.2010. Due to
matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties,
they have been living separately since January 2017.
7. Respondent No. 2 filed the criminal complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Tis Hazari Courts, on 15.03.2024, against the
petitioners, being his wife, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, for offences
under Sections 199/415/420/463/468/471/34/120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners were involved
in using forged documents, including a Nepalese Citizenship ID Card.
8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered
into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 23.09.2025. They
have, therefore, filed this petition for quashing of the criminal
proceedings.
9. Respondent No. 2 states that the said criminal complaint arose out
of a misunderstanding in connection with the matrimonial dispute.
10. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties have applied for first motion
of divorce by mutual consent on 24.09.2025, and their joint statement was
recorded.
CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 20/02/2026 at 20:40:14
11. The Settlement Agreement, as annexed to the petition, contains
certain clauses imposing restrictions upon the rights of the minor child,
which appears to be unreasonable and implausible, including the minor
child being deprived of his right to seek maintenance, and his share in
petitioner No.1’s estate, upon payment of a settlement amount. The
agreement also does not contemplate any visitation rights to petitioner
No. 1. In this regard, pursuant to order dated 12.02.2026, a joint
additional affidavit dated 16.02.2026 has been filed, clarifying that no
legal rights of the minor child stand curtailed by this settlement, and also
with respect to visitation rights to petitioner No. 1. In light of the
aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR, on the basis of the
Settlement Agreement, as modified to the extent indicated in the
additional affidavit dated 16.02.2026.
12. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances,
the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings,
even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that
there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant,
especially when no overarching public interest is 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 of1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 20/02/2026 at 20:40:14
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 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:
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 20/02/2026 at 20:40:14
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.
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 proceedings between the parties arise out of
a matrimonial relationship, and the parties have already moved the
Family Court for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The first
CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 20/02/2026 at 20:40:14
motion before the Family Court stands filed, and their joint statement has
been recorded. The Settlement Agreement provides for quashing of the
criminal proceedings at this stage. Respondent No. 2 has also stated that
the present criminal complaint arose in context with the matrimonial
dispute, which stands settled. Applying the tests laid down by the
Supreme Court, it may be observed that the respondent No. 2 has also
categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the
Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to
result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality,
adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public
resources unnecessarily.
15. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
to respondent No. 2 in the name of their minor son in two instalments.
The first installment contemplates payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by way
of a demand draft pursuant to the quashing of the present case. The
second tranche of payment will be made at the time of divorce. I am
informed that the first instalment already stands deposited before the
Family Court, Sirsa, Haryana.
16. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
Criminal Complaint No. 2226/2021, dated 15.03.2024, pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
17. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement read
with the joint additional affidavit dated 16.02.2026.
18. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 20/02/2026 at 20:40:14
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
FEBRUARY 17, 2026
‘pv’/AD/
CRL.M.C. 8791/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 20/02/2026 at 20:40:14
