Sonu Alias Sandeep & ORS. v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~98-Q *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ SONU ALIAS SANDEEP & ORS.

.....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Jyoti Verma, Mr. Radhe Sham Rohilla, Advs.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP SI Umair

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 24.04.2026 1.

By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"], the present petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 221/2019 dated 14.06.2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC"], at Police Station Kanjhawla, District Rohini, Delhi, on the ground of settlement. 2.

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 in present in person and declines the assistance of counsel. 3.

The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4.

The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and brother of petitioner No. 1, respectively. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

5.

The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 25.06.2013. Disputes started arising between the parties, due to which they have been living separately since 08.08.2018. One male child was born from the wedlock on 21.10.2015, who is presently in the custody of petitioner No. 1.

6.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, against her husband, his parents, and his brother, alleging physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon her on demands of dowry, which culminated in the subject FIR.

7.

I have been informed that chargesheet has been filed after completion of investigation.

8.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement on 18.07.2025 under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts.

The settlement does not involve any monetary consideration. It was agreed that the custody of the minor child shall remain with petitioner No. 1, and respondent No. 2 has relinquished all visitation rights.

9.

Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, passed by the Family Court on 09.02.2026. 10.

Subsequently, the mother-in-law of respondent No. 2 passed away on 22.02.2026 and proceedings against her stand abated. A copy of her death certificate has been placed on record.

11.

In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the subject FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

12.

The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their counsel and the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 also appears in person and is identified by the IO. 13.

Respondent No. 2 states before the Court that, although there is no monetary settlement, she is satisfied with the terms of the settlement and does not wish to continue with the present criminal case. 14.

Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 15.

Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is noncompoundable, 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), 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. 16.

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, 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.

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.

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. 2Emphasis 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.

29.2. 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 17.

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 conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to 4Emphasis supplied.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.

18.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 221/2019 dated 14.06.2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, at Police Station Kanjhawla, District Rohini, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 19.

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 20.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

21.

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 petitioner No. 1.

PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 24, 2026 Tg/JM/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.