Bharat Kumar and Others v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another

O R D E R %

21.08.2026

¶1The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of FIR No. 591/2024, dated 23.11.2024, registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

¶2Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 appears in person, and states that she does not want assistance of counsel.

¶3The impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 11 is the mother of petitioner No. 1; petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are his brothers; and petitioner Nos. 9 and 10 are his sisters. petitioner No. 5 is the sister-in-The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. law of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner Nos. 6 to 8 are his niece and nephews.

¶4As petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 are minors, they are represented through their legal guardians, and their presence is thus exempted. The other petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and is identified by the IO.

¶5Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 06.02.2023. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they had been living separately since 03.04.2023.

¶6Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners.

¶7During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have settled their disputes and have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Agreement dated 20.01.2025, under the aegis of Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The settlement contemplates reconciliation between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, who have resumed cohabitation as husband and wife, and have been residing together for the last one and a half years.

¶8The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent No. 2, who appears in Court, affirms the aforesaid position, and states that she has no further subsisting grievances against the petitioners.

¶9In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. FIR.

¶10The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their extraordinary powers, 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.

¶11The 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 1 2012 10 SCC 303. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. 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. 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 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. 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

¶12In the present case, the dispute stems from a matrimonial relationship that has since been amicably resolved. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have reconciled and are living together since more than one and a half years. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be prejudicial to their marital harmony. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, respondent No. 2 has unequivocally stated before this Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. In these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to lead to a conviction and would merely serve as a procedural formality, thereby imposing an unnecessary burden on the justice system and diverting valuable judicial resources without serving any meaningful purpose.

¶13In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 591/2024, dated 23.11.2024, registered at Police Station The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. Ambedkar Nagar, District-South, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶14The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

¶15The petition, along with pending application, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 21, 2026 Tg/SM/ 4 Emphasis supplied. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010391202026 + W.P.(CRL) 2529/2026, CRL.M.A. 25724/2026 BHARAT KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Faij Imam, Advocate. Ps in person versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANOTHER .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Sr. Adv, with Ms. Manjeet Arya for State. R2 (In Person) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN