Delhi High Court – Orders
Satish Bundela & Ors vs State G N C T Delhi Ps Prasad Nagar & Anr on 18 May, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~145 Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3866/2026
SATISH BUNDELA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nitya Sharma & Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advocate with Petitioners
in person.
versus
STATE G N C T DELHI
PS PRASAD NAGAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State
with with SI Rahul Mehta, PS
Prasad Nagar
Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate
with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 18.05.2026
CRL.M.A. 15911/2026 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3866/2026
1. The petitioners have filed the present 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. 211/2022 dated 31.03.2022, registered at
Police Station Prasad Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 406/498A/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], alongwith all proceedings arising
CRL.M.C. 3866/2026 Page 1 of 7
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 20/05/2026 at 21:09:08
therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their
disputes.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State, and Mr. Devender Kumar,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been duly identified
by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.
Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been similarly
identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. Petitioner No. 1 was, at the relevant time, the husband of
respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is his brother, petitioner No. 3 is his
mother, and petitioner No. 4 is his sister. I am informed that the father of
petitioner No.1 was also arrayed as an accused in the present matter.
However, during the pendency of the proceedings, he passed away on
03.02.2022, and consequently, the proceedings against him stand abated.
A copy of the death certificate has been annexed along with the petition.
6. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 04.03.2017
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, and one daughter was born from
the said wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental
differences between the parties, they have been living separately since
20.09.2018.
7. The impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of
respondent No. 2, who had earlier lodged a complaint before the Crime
Against Women Cell on 23.06.2021. The said complaint, after inquiry,
CRL.M.C. 3866/2026 Page 2 of 7
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 20/05/2026 at 21:09:08
culminated in the registration of the present FIR against petitioner Nos. 1
to 4.
8. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on
05.07.2024, whereupon charge under Section 323 of IPC was also added.
9. The parties have thereafter entered into a Settlement Deed dated
19.07.2025 under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari
Courts, Central District, whereby it has been mutually agreed that all
disputes arising out of their marriage, including claims towards
maintenance, permanent alimony, stridhan, and all past, present and
future claims, as well as all civil and criminal proceedings between them,
stand fully and finally settled for a total settlement amount of Rs.
2,75,000/-.
10. The said amount is agreed to be paid in three instalments, i.e., Rs.
75,000/- at the time of first motion, Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith return of
jewellery articles at the time of recording of the statement of second
motion, and Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of recording of the statement in the
proceedings for quashing of the subject FIR. It is further agreed that, as
part of the settlement, the minor child shall remain in the custody of
petitioner No. 1/husband.
11. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
12. Pursuant to the settlement between the parties, the marriage has
been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated
03.02.2026 passed by the Family Court in HMA No. 1549/2025.
13. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
CRL.M.C. 3866/2026 Page 3 of 7
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 20/05/2026 at 21:09:08
14. Although the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 is non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently
held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts may exercise their
inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section
482 of CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings, including in respect of non-
compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably settled their
disputes and the continuation of such proceedings would serve no useful
purpose, particularly when no overriding 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 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 the1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 3866/2026 Page 4 of 7
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 20/05/2026 at 21:09:08
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 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.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 3866/2026 Page 5 of 7
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 20/05/2026 at 21:09:08
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 arise out of a matrimonial
relationship between the parties, which has already culminated in a
decree of divorce. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it
is evident that respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed the
voluntary nature of the settlement before this Court. In these
circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to
result in a conviction and would therefore serve no useful purpose. On the
contrary, it would amount to an empty formality, unnecessarily burdening
the justice system and consuming valuable public resources.
17. The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs.
2,75,000/- to respondent No. 2, out of which Rs. 1,75,000/- has already
been paid. The balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been handed over to
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 3866/2026 Page 6 of 7
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 20/05/2026 at 21:09:08
respondent No. 2 in Court today. In view of the aforesaid, the terms of
settlement stand complied with, and there is no impediment in granting
the relief sought.
18. Having regard to the above discussion, the present petition is
allowed, and FIR No. 211/2022 dated 31.03.2022, registered at Police
Station Prasad Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 406/498A/34 of IPC,
alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed.
19. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
20. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands
disposed of.
21. It is, however, made clear that the settlement as well as the present
order shall not, in any manner, affect the rights of the minor child, whose
custody shall continue to remain with petitioner No. 1/father.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 18, 2026
‘pv’/SD/
CRL.M.C. 3866/2026 Page 7 of 7
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 20/05/2026 at 21:09:08
[ad_1]
Source link
