Delhi High Court – Orders
Arun Kumar & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 20 July, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~101-Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4971/2026
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dushyant Chaudhary, Mr.
Akash Gautam, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Arvind
Kumar, PS-Jafrabad.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 20.07.2026
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 FIR No. 382/2025, dated 22.08.2025, registered at Police
Station Jafrabad, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections
85/316(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”]
(corresponding to Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860)
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [“DP Act“], and all
proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State. Mr. Ravi Sharma, learned
counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. Petitioners are present in Court, and they are identified by their
learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”].
CRL.M.C. 4971/2026 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 22/07/2026 at 21:15:54
Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and is identified by her learned
counsel and the IO.
4. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on
14.12.2020, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. Petitioner Nos. 2
to 4 are mother, brother and sister of petitioner No. 1 respectively. One
female child was born from the wedlock on 27.06.2023. Due to
matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties,
respondent No. 2 has been living separately since 25.12.2024.
5. Respondent No. 2, lodged a formal complaint before the Crime
against Women Cell against her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law,
and sister-in-law, which culminated into the impugned FIR.
6. Chargesheet has not yet been filed in the proceedings.
7. Thereafter, the parties have entered into a settlement on
24.12.2025, under the aegis of Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi. The settlement contemplates that a property, which is in
the joint name of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, alongwith keys
and relevant documents, shall be handed over to respondent No. 2. In this
regard, petitioner No. 1 will execute a relinquishment deed/gift deed with
respect to his share in the property in favour of respondent No. 2.
8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
9. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a
decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 08.06.2026, passed
by the Family Courts.
10. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
CRL.M.C. 4971/2026 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 22/07/2026 at 21:15:54
11. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances,
the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the
BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the 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.
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 that1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 4971/2026 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 22/07/2026 at 21:15:54
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.”
13. 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 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
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 4971/2026 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 22/07/2026 at 21:15:54
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, which has already culminated in a decree of
divorce. 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. Although the settlement contemplates no monetary payment, it
includes a property to be handed over to respondent No. 2, as recorded
above. I am informed that petitioner No. 1 has already executed a
relinquishment deed with respect to his share in the property in favour of
respondent No. 2, and that it has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in
full. There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.
CRL.M.C. 4971/2026 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 22/07/2026 at 21:15:54
16. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 382/2025, dated 22.08.2025, registered at Police Station
Jafrabad, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections 85/316(2)/3(5) of
BNS and Section 4 of DP Act, alongwith all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
17. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
18. The petition 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
JULY 20, 2026
‘B’/MK/
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 4971/2026 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 22/07/2026 at 21:15:54
