Delhi High Court – Orders
Shri Sarabjit Singh & Anr vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 27 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 8276/2025
SHRI SARABJIT SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anuuj Aggarwall, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT
OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with Mr.
Samar Pratap, Advocate, and SI
Sourabh Malik.
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 27.02.2026
1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing
of FIR No. 1252/2014 dated 24.12.2014 registered at Police Station K.N.
Katju Marg, Outer District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/420/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC“] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, alongwith all consequential 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. Mr. Deepak Kumar,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 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 13/03/2026 at 21:23:35
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is
taken up for disposal.
4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.
2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1.
5. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on
06.10.2013 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. One female child was
from the wedlock on 30.06.2014. Due to matrimonial discord and
temperamental differences, the parties started living separately since
2014.
6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against
Women Cell, Outer District, alleging cruelty and dowry-related
harassment against petitioner No. 1 and his mother, based on which the
present FIR was registered on 24.12.2014. Upon completion of
investigation, a chargesheet has been filed on 25.11.2017 and the matter
is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila
Court), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.09.2025, whereby all
disputes between them have been amicably settled. As per the terms of
settlement, petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay a total sum of
Rs.17,00,000/- to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement of all
her claims, including stridhan, past, present and future maintenance, and
permanent alimony for herself and the minor child.
8. It was further agreed that the custody of the minor child shall
remain with respondent No. 2, and petitioner No. 1 shall not claim
visitation or permanent custody in the future. The parties have also agreed
CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 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 13/03/2026 at 21:23:35
that the ex parte decree of divorce passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 in
MC No. 2879/2015 by the Family Court, Bangalore, on 25.08.2016 shall
be treated as final and binding, and respondent No. 2 shall not challenge
the same.
9. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are present in Court and have
been identified by their respective counsel as well as by the Investigating
Officer.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
11. 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.
12. 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 offences1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 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 13/03/2026 at 21:23:35
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
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.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 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 13/03/2026 at 21:23:35
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.”4
13. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of
a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of
divorce. 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
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 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 13/03/2026 at 21:23:35
conviction, and their continuation would be an empty formality, adding to
the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources
unnecessarily.
14. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-
to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 confirms that she has received Rs.
7,00,000/- till date. The balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been
handed over to respondent No.2 in Court today by way of Demand Draft.
There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.
15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 1252/2014 dated
24.12.2014 registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Outer District,
Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/420/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
16. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
17. 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 respondent No. 2.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2026
Sh/JM
CRL.M.C. 8276/2025 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 13/03/2026 at 21:23:35