Delhi High Court – Orders
Sahil Seth & Ors vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 13 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1258/2026
SAHIL SETH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sahil Vij, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP. ASI Om
Prakash.
R2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 13.02.2026
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. 15/2021, dated 29.04.2021, registered at Police
Station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanak Pura, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their
learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”].
Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conference and is
identified by the IO.
CRL.M.C. 1258/2026 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 16/02/2026 at 20:37:24
3. Issue notice. Mr. Aman Usman, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 also
accepts notice. She declines the assistance of counsel.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties.
5. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2,
who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-
law of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of
petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 4 is the mother of petitioner No. 1.
6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on
21.01.2012. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences
between the parties, they have been living separately since October 2019.
One child was born from the wedlock on 21.10.2012.
7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime
against Women Cell on 02.03.2020, and the same culminated into the
impugned FIR, against five accused persons, being her husband, mother-
in-law, two sisters-in-law, and a brother-in-law.
8. A chargesheet was subsequently filed. An offence under Section
354 of IPC was added against petitioner No. 2.
9. The parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a
Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.04.2022.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
Respondent No. 2 specifically states that she is satisfied with the terms of
settlement, even though it does not contemplate any monetary terms.
11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a
decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court on 06.08.2022.
CRL.M.C. 1258/2026 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 16/02/2026 at 20:37:24
12. Respondent No.2 is present by way of video conference and
submits that allegation under Section 354 of the IPC arose out of a
misunderstanding in connection with her matrimonial dispute.
13. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
14. 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.
15. 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 public1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 1258/2026 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 16/02/2026 at 20:37:24
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
2
prescribed.”
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 guiding2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 1258/2026 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 16/02/2026 at 20:37:24
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.”4
16. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of
a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of
divorce. Respondent No. 2 has also stated before this Court that the
allegations under Section 354 of IPC arose out of a misunderstanding in
context of the said matrimonial dispute. 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
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 1258/2026 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 16/02/2026 at 20:37:24
result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality,
adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public
resources unnecessarily.
17. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 15/2021 dated 29.04.2021, registered at Police Station Crime
Against Women Cell, Nanak Pura, under Section 498A/406/34 of the
IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed.
18. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
19. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
20. 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 the respondent No. 2.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2026
SS/AD/
CRL.M.C. 1258/2026 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 16/02/2026 at 20:37:24