Delhi High Court – Orders
Jagvinder Singh Kushal & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 20 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6252/2025
JAGVINDER SINGH KUSHAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ratton K. Mishra and Mr.
Deepanshu Baliwal, Advocates for
Petitioners.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State
with ASI Sunita, SI Preetam, P.S.
Mohan Garden.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 20.02.2026
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 FIR No. 35/2024 dated 31.01.2024, registered at Police
Station Mohan Garden, District Dwarka, New Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], 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 the State. Respondent No. 2 –
complainant is present in person, and accepts notice.
3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 10.11.2022.
Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the
parties, they had started living separately from 17.03.2023.
4. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime
CRL.M.C. 6252/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:08
against Women Cell on 24.05.2023, which culminated into the impugned
FIR, against four accused persons, being her husband, parents-in-law, and
sister-in-law [petitioners herein]. Upon completion of investigation, a
chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A/406/34/354 of the IPC. The
father-in-law of respondent No. 2 [petitioner No. 2 herein] was
chargesheeted under Section 354.
5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since entered into a
settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 09.05.2025. As per the
settlement, the parties agreed to resume cohabitation, and to fulfill their
matrimonial obligations.
6. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
7. Petitioner No. 1 is present in Court, and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are
present through video conference. They are identified by their learned
counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also
present in person, and is identified by the Investigating Officer.
8. Respondent No. 2 has filed her no-objection affidavit before this
Court. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 confirm that the settlement
has been entered into voluntarily, without any force or coercion, and that
they have been living together since approximately two months.
Respondent No. 2 further submits that the allegations, including the
allegation against her father-in-law [petitioner No. 2 herein] for the
offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, arose out of a
misunderstanding, and that she does not wish to pursue the same.
9. Although the offences under Sections 354 and 498A of the IPC are
non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain
CRL.M.C. 6252/2025 Page 2 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:08
circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section
482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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.
10. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 notCRL.M.C. 6252/2025 Page 3 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:08
exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-
fast category can be prescribed.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6
SCC 466], 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 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
CRL.M.C. 6252/2025 Page 4 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:08
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.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
11. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of
a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a settlement.
As petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since reconciled, the
continuance of the criminal proceedings would only impede their married
life. Respondent No. 2 has stated that the allegations under Section 354 of
the IPC emanated out of a misunderstanding, in the wake of the
matrimonial disputes. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme
Court, it may be observed that 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.
12. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 35/2024 dated 31.01.2024, registered at Police Station Mohan
Garden, District Dwarka, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed.
13. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
14. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2026/’pv/KA’/
CRL.M.C. 6252/2025 Page 5 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:08
