Delhi High Court – Orders
Deepak Kumar And Others vs The State Nct Of Delhi Through Sho Of P.S. … on 6 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~131
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1103/2026
DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mahender Kumar Kaushik,
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO OF
P.S. PALAM VILLAGE AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Criminal)
for State with Mr. Kshitiz Garg,
Ms. Ashvini Kumar & Mr. Anshul
Sharma, Advocates.
SI Rajesh Chawla, PS Palam
Village.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma & Mr.
Aaditya, Advocates for R-2
alongwith R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 06.04.2026
CRL.M.A. 10381/2026(exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 1103/2026
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. 293/2024 dated 05.05.2024, registered at Police
Station Palam Village, District South West, Delhi, under Sections
W.P.(CRL) 1103/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:11:14
498/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Amol Sinha, learned Additional Standing Counsel
(Criminal), accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Vinay Kumar
Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
4. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.
2, who is the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2-10 are family
members of petitioner No. 1.
5. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 14.06.2022,
as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Due to matrimonial discord and
temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living
separately since 21.01.2023. No child was born from the said wedlock.
6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime
Against Women Cell against the petitioners alleging physical and mental
torture on demands of dowry, on the basis of which the subject FIR was
registered on 05.05.2024. I am informed by learned counsel for the
parties that no chargesheet has yet been filed.
7. During the pendency of the investigation, the parties have settled
their disputes and have entered into a settlement under the aegis of
Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi, recorded in a Mediated Settlement
dated 21.08.2025. The Settlement contemplates that the parties have
reconciled their disputes and resumed cohabitation as husband and wife
and are willing to withdraw/quash all pending litigation between them.
8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
W.P.(CRL) 1103/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:11:14
FIR and all consequential proceedings therefrom.
9. The parties are present in Court, and are identified by their learned
counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer.
10. The parties are present in person and submit that they have fully
reconciled their differences and are now residing together since August
2025. They further state that the terms of the Settlement have been duly
implemented in their entirety, and that no disputes or grievances subsist
between them at present.
11. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the Settlement has
been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
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. 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 offencesW.P.(CRL) 1103/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:11:14
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
1
prescribed.”
Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.2, 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.
1
Emphasis supplied.
2
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
W.P.(CRL) 1103/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:11:14
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.”3
14. In the present case, the dispute stems from a matrimonial
relationship that has since been amicably resolved. Petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 have reconciled and are living together since August
2025, and in such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would be prejudicial to their marital harmony. Applying the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court, respondent No. 2 has
3
Emphasis supplied.
W.P.(CRL) 1103/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:11:14
unequivocally stated 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
lead to a conviction and would merely serve as a procedural formality,
thereby imposing an unnecessary burden on the justice system and
diverting valuable judicial resources without serving any meaningful
purpose.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 293/2024 dated 05.05.2024, registered at Police Station Palam
Village, District South West, Delhi, under Sections 498/406/34 of the
IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed.
16. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the Settlement.
17. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 6, 2026
‘pv/JM’/
W.P.(CRL) 1103/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:11:14
[ad_1]
Source link
