Delhi High Court – Orders
Sushil Kumar Mittal & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 6 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2498/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10173/2026
SUSHIL KUMAR MITTAL & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jatin Rana, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.
SI Rajat, PS: Vijay Vihar.
Mr. Bhaunesh Dalal, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 06.04.2026
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
the quashing of FIR No. 119/2024, dated 02.03.2024, registered at Police
Station Vijay Vihar under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 [“IPC“], alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, on the
ground that the matter has been amicably settled.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Bhaunesh Dalal,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. Out of the 9 petitioners, 7 are physically present in Court, while the
remaining 2 are present via video conference. All petitioners have been
CRL.M.C. 2498/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:08:43
identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.
Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been duly 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. The marriage of respondent No.2 with her husband was solemnized
on 18.11.2010, and 5 children were born from the wedlock. Her husband
died on 03.06.2023.
6. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of
respondent No. 2, respectively. Petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are the
siblings of her late husband, while petitioner No. 8 is his maternal uncle.
7. Following the death of her husband on 03.06.2023, certain disputes
arose between respondent No. 2 and her late husband’s family, the
petitioners herein. Pursuant thereto, she lodged a formal complaint with
the Crime Against Women Cell, which ultimately led to the registration
of the impugned FIR against the petitioners on 02.03.2024.
8. Thereafter, on 18.03.2024, respondent No. 2 filed a petition under
Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
before the Family Court at Rohini, seeking maintenance for herself and
her minor children.
9. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed on 12.05.2024 against the
present petitioners, during which charges under Sections 354 and 506 of
the IPC were added against petitioner No. 9 and petitioner No. 8,
respectively.
10. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered
into a Settlement Agreement dated 12.12.2025 before the Delhi
CRL.M.C. 2498/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:08:43
Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts. In terms of the settlement, the
petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month towards
maintenance for respondent No. 2 and her children, with a provision for
periodical enhancement of 10% every three years, alongwith other agreed
terms relating to property rights and specified visitation rights.
11. I am informed that pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioners
have already commenced compliance by making the first payment of Rs.
12,000/- to respondent No. 2 on 05.03.2026.
12. Learned counsel for the parties have confirmed that the settlement
was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.
13. It is further submitted by respondent No. 2 that the allegation under
Section 354 against petitioner No. 9 arose from a misunderstanding.
14. Mr. Jatin Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits, on
instructions from the petitioners who are present in Court, that they
accept joint and several responsibility for ensuring the aforesaid
payments and acknowledge that, in the event of default, they shall be
liable to face appropriate legal proceedings, including contempt of Court.
15. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
16. The Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate circumstances,
High Courts may, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the
BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), quash criminal
proceedings, including those relating to non-compoundable offences,
where a compromise has been reached between the accused and the
complainant, particularly when such quashing does not prejudice any
overriding public interest.
CRL.M.C. 2498/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:08:43
17. 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 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
1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 2498/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:08:43
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
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
CRL.M.C. 2498/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:08:43
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
18. In the present case, the disputes arose following the death of
respondent No. 2’s husband and pertain to matters between her and her
late husband’s family. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
parties have entered into a comprehensive and voluntary settlement,
under which the petitioners have undertaken to provide regular
maintenance to respondent No. 2 and her minor children, with provisions
for periodic enhancement, and have already commenced compliance
thereof. Learned counsel for the parties have confirmed that the
settlement was arrived at freely, without any coercion or undue influence,
and certain allegations, including that under Section 354 IPC against
petitioner No. 9, have been clarified to have arisen from a
misunderstanding.
19. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that
the settlement reached between the parties is voluntary and bona fide, as
has been categorically affirmed by respondent No. 2 before the Court. In
light of these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to
result in conviction, and their continuation would amount to a mere
formalistic exercise, imposing unnecessary burdens on both the parties
and the judicial system, while consuming public resources without
furthering justice or safeguarding any overriding public interest.
20. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.
21. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2498/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:08:43
119/2024 dated 02.03.2024, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar,
under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
22. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
23. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
24. It is, however, clarified that the settlement and the present order
shall not, in any manner, affect the rights of the minor children, whose
custody shall continue to remain with respondent No. 2.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 6, 2026
SS/SD/
CRL.M.C. 2498/2026 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 07/04/2026 at 21:08:43
