Nitin Panwar & ORS. v. State Govt NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~33 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ NITIN PANWAR & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Ms. Garima Khetal, Advocate with Petitioner No. 1 in person.

versus STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel with Mr.

Aryan Sachdeva, Advocate and WSI Ekta, P.S.

Mangalpuri.

Mr. Shivam Pahal and Mr. Harsh Sheokhand, Advocates with R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 26.02.2026 1.

Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Shivam Pahal, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 - complainant. 2.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 11.11.2017. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 29.07.2022. A child was born from the wedlock on 18.11.2020.

3.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell, which culminated into the impugned FIR bearing No. 1057/2023 dated 20.10.2023, registered at P.S. Mangol Puri, Outer The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

District, New Delhi, against five accused persons, being her husband, parents-in-law, and brothers-in-law [petitioners herein]. 4.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since entered into a settlement, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.07.2024 ["MoU"]. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

5.

Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, passed by the Family Court on 28.04.2025. 6.

The MoU contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2. I am informed that an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent No. 2 in terms of the settlement. The remaining amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No. 2 today.

7.

By order dated 17.02.2026, it was recorded as follows: "1.

This petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 1057/2023 dated 20.10.2023, registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, which emanate from a matrimonial dispute. The parties have executed a Memorandum of Understanding ["MoU"] dated 19.07.2024. However, they submit that they wish to reconsider one aspect of the MoU, namely the terms relating to visitation rights of petitioner No. 1 with the minor child. 2.

For this purpose, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are referred to Samadhan, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Shershah Road, New Delhi - 110503.

3.

As the parties are all present in Court today, Samadhan is requested to take up the matter today at 4:30 PM. 4.

Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who are the parents and brothers of petitioner No. 1, are present in Court. They have been identified by their learned counsel, Ms. Garima Khetal, as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 has already filed a noobjection affidavit stating that she does not wish to proceed with the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

criminal proceedings against them.

The personal presence of petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 is, therefore, dispensed with for the present.

5.

List before the Court on 26.02.2026 at 03:30 PM. 6.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing."

8.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Samadhan has furnished a Settlement Agreement dated 25.02.2026, setting out the terms relating to the visitation rights of the minor child of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2.

9.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are present in the Court, and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any force or coercion.

10.

Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable, the 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.

11.

The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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-andfast category can be prescribed." [Emphasis supplied.] Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 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."

[Emphasis supplied.] 12.

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 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 conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

unnecessarily.

13.

As noted above, the settlement amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- has been received by respondent No. 2. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

14.

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 1057/2023 dated 20.10.2023, registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, Outer District, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.

15.

The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 16.

The petition stands disposed of.

17.

It is made clear that this order does not affect the rights of the minor child, who remains in the custody of respondent No. 2. PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 26, 2026 Sh/KA/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.