Delhi High Court – Orders
Arun Sharma & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2481/2026
ARUN SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ayush Jindal, Mr. Mayank
Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Mishra &
Ms. Aashi Goyal, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI
Nisha, PS Vasant Vihar.
Mr. Divya Kr. Kaushik, Mr. Neeraj
Gupta, Ms. Divya Mishra, Mr.
Rohit Kr. Ujjainwa & Ms. Swati,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 02.04.2026
CRL.M.A. 10099/2026 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2481/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10100/2026
1. The petitioners have instituted the present 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 the quashing of FIR No. 264/2021 dated 27.11.2021,
registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar under Sections 498A, 420, 468,
CRL.M.C. 2481/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:14
471, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the
parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State, while Mr. Divya Kr.
Kaushik, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been duly identified
by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent
No. 2 is also present in person and has been similarly identified by her
learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 01.03.2009
in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Owing to matrimonial
discord and irreconcilable temperamental differences, the parties have
been living separately since 24.08.2020. Out of the said wedlock, one
daughter was born on 06.10.2021.
6. Respondent No. 2 first lodged a formal complaint before the Crime
Against Women Cell, which thereafter led to the registration of the
impugned FIR dated 27.11.2021 against the petitioners. While petitioner
No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2, petitioner No.2 is his brother.
7. The parties have amicably resolved all their disputes through
mediation at the Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, pursuant
to which a Settlement Agreement dated 23.02.2022 was duly executed
between them.
8. In terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total
CRL.M.C. 2481/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:14
sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of all claims,
including maintenance, alimony, stridhan, and the future expenses of the
child. Out of the said amount, Rs. 50,00,000/- has already been
transferred in the name of the daughter, Rs. 55,00,000/- has been paid at
the stage of the first motion, and Rs. 20,00,000/- deposited in an FDR for
the purchase of a flat in the joint names of respondent No. 2 and the child
at the stage of the second motion. A further sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was
agreed to be paid at the stage of quashing of the FIR, out of which Rs.
30,00,000/- has already been paid, and the balance amount of Rs.
20,00,000/- has been handed over in Court today to respondent No. 2 by
way of a demand draft.
9. The Settlement Agreement contemplates dissolution of the
marriage by mutual consent. Pursuant thereto, the marriage has been
dissolved by a decree of divorce [in HMA No. 221/2026] by mutual
consent by the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, on 10.03.2026.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
11. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases,
the High Courts may exercise their inherent powers under Section 528 of
the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash criminal
proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the
parties have amicably settled their disputes and the continuation of such
proceedings would serve no useful purpose, provided that no overriding
public interest is adversely affected.
CRL.M.C. 2481/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:14
12. 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 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
prescribed.”2Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the
Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 2481/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:14
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.
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
CRL.M.C. 2481/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:14
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
13. In the present case, the proceedings emanate from a matrimonial
dispute, which has already culminated in the dissolution of marriage by a
decree of divorce. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court, it is evident that respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed
before this Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily. In such
circumstances, the likelihood of conviction is remote, and the
continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful
purpose, amounting to a mere formality that would unnecessarily burden
the justice system and result in wastage of valuable public resources.
14. Respondent No. 2 confirms that she has received the entire
settlement amount in full satisfaction of the terms of the settlement;
accordingly, no impediment remains to the grant of the relief sought in
the present petition.
15. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed, and FIR
No. 264/2021 dated 27.11.2021, registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar
under Sections 498A, 420, 468, 471, 406, and 34 of the IPC, alongwith
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
16. The child born out of the wedlock was born on 04.02.2010 and is,
therefore, still a minor. She is presently in the custody of respondent No.
2, with petitioner No. 1 having specified visitation rights. It is clarified
that the present order shall not affect the rights and interests of the minor
child in any manner.
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2481/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:14
17. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
19. The petition, alongwith the pending application, accordingly stands
disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 2, 2026
‘pv’/SD/
CRL.M.C. 2481/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:14