Delhi High Court – Orders
Manish Bansal And Ors vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 23 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 9157/2025
MANISH BANSAL AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Samiksha Garg, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.
Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 23.02.2026
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. 779/2018 dated 22.12.2018, registered at Police
Station Vijay Vihar, 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. Ms. Ritambhra Kalra,
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 parties are present on video conference, and are identified by
CRL.M.C. 9157/2025 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 25/02/2026 at 20:33:42
their learned counsel.
5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent
No.2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother
of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.3 is the brother of petitioner No.1, and
petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1.
6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on
28.11.2003. One child was born from the marriage on 02.04.2005, who
has attained majority. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental
differences between the parties, they were living separately since
September 2018.
7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime
against Women Cell, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR,
against four accused persons, being her husband, mother-in-law, brother-
in-law and sister-in-law.
8. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.02.2024,
which contemplated the parties obtaining divorce by mutual consent. The
settlement further contemplated payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- to respondent
No. 2 and handing over the physical possession of an immovable property
by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner No. 1.
9. Consequently, the settlement amount was paid to respondent No. 2,
and the first motion was filed by the parties, which was allowed by the
Family Court vide order dated 24.04.2024. However, during pendency of
these proceedings, the parties entered into another Memorandum of
Understanding dated 17.05.2025, which states that the parties have since
reconciled and are living together with their child.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
CRL.M.C. 9157/2025 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 25/02/2026 at 20:33:42
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
12. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-
compoundable, 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 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,1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 9157/2025 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 25/02/2026 at 20:33:42
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.”2
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.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 9157/2025 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 25/02/2026 at 20:33:42
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, which has since been amicably resolved.
Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have reconciled and have been
living together since April 2024. In these circumstances, the continuation
of criminal proceedings would only disrupt their marital life. 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.
CRL.M.C. 9157/2025 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 25/02/2026 at 20:33:42
15. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 779/2018 dated 22.12.2028, registered at Police Station Vijay
Vihar, under Sections 498A/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
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
SS/AD/
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 9157/2025 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 25/02/2026 at 20:33:42
