Himanshu Sharma & ORS. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi.) & ANR.

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + HIMANSHU SHARMA & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Sudhir, Advocate alongwith Petitioners in Person.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI.) & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for State.

ASI Ram Singh, PS Bindapur Mr. Kunal Ahlawat, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in Person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 24.02.2026 1.

The petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of FIR No. 344/2023 dated 01.06.2023, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"] and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Kunal Ahlawat, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

3.

The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

counsel for the parties.

4.

The impugned FIR is 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 29.06.2020 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 30.08.2022. No child was born from the wedlock.

6.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Dwarka, on 14.09.2022, against her husband and his family members, i.e., the present petitioners, alleging harassment for dowry and cruelty inflicted upon her. Based on the said complaint, the subject FIR was registered on 01.06.2023.

7.

Mr. Lao submits that a chargesheet has recently been filed, which includes allegations under Section 354 of the IPC; however, cognizance has not yet been taken by the learned Trial Court. Be that as it may, Mr. Ahlawat, upon instructions from respondent No. 2, who is present in person before this Court, submits that the allegation under Section 354 of the IPC was made against her father-in-law owing to a misunderstanding arising out of the matrimonial dispute.

8.

The parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 06.09.2025. It has been agreed that a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with specified jewellery/stridhan articles shall be paid by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 in full and final settlement of all claims towards maintenance, alimony, dowry articles, and stridhan, in three instalments linked to the stages of divorce and quashing of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

present FIR. Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw the pending domestic violence proceedings and cooperate in the quashing of the FIR, and both parties have undertaken not to initiate any further civil or criminal proceedings against each other or their family members. 9.

Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, District South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, on 20.11.2025 [in HMA No. 3488/2025].

10.

In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

11.

The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is identified by Mr. Ahlawat and the IO. 12.

The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, 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. 13.

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 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.

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 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: 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.

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 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 14.

In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. Respondent No. 2 has also affirmed before this Court that the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

allegations under Section 354 of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding stemming from the marital discord. 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 conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.

15.

The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to respondent No. 2. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been received by respondent No. 2, and the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been handed over to her in Court today. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought. 16.

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 344/2023 dated 01.06.2023, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

17.

The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18.

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 24, 2026 'pv/JM'/ 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.