Md.Ansar And ORS v. The State NCT Of Delhi And ORS

$~16-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7469/2025 MD.ANSAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Ashok Kumar and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advs.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Rahul Rathi, PS-Sangam Vihar.

Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 25.05.2026 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 quashing of FIR No. 286/2025, dated 23.06.2025, registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, District South, Delhi, under Sections 498/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3.

Petitioner No. 1 is present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and is identified by the IO. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 CRL.M.C. 7469/2025 Page 1 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

are exempted from personal appearance.

4.

The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 5.

The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are family members of petitioner No. 1.

6.

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 06.11.2022, as per Muslim rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since March-April 2025. 7.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell against the petitioners, alleging physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon her over demands of dowry, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered on 23.06.2025. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed and the case is pending before the Magistrate's Court for "Misc./Appearance". 8.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a Settlement Deed dated 01.09.2025. In terms of the settlement, the parties agreed to resume matrimonial life and cohabit together. Respondent No. 2 further agreed to cooperate in quashing of the subject FIR.

9.

The present petition was thereafter filed. By an order of this Court dated 17.10.2025, it was recorded as follows: "2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have resolved their differences and have decided to reside together again.

3. The complainant is present in person in Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. She states that at the moment, she is not staying with the petitioners, however, settlement has been CRL.M.C. 7469/2025 Page 2 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

arrived at and she will soon be shifting along with the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State suggests that the present matter be kept after six months in order to observe the conduct of the petitioners.

5. The aforesaid suggestion commends to this Court.

6. Accordingly, list on 25.05.2026."

10.

I am informed by learned counsel for the parties that pursuant to the said settlement and the aforesaid order, the parties reconciled and resumed cohabitation as husband and wife with effect from 19.10.2025. 11.

Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 12.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are present in Court, and I have interacted with them. They affirm that they have been residing together as husband and wife since 19.10.2025. The complainant has specifically stated that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioners and seeks quashing of the FIR in the interest of matrimonial harmony. Petitioner No. 1 has also assured the Court that the parties shall continue to live together harmoniously.

13.

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

14.

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 CrPC), 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. 15.

The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. has held as follows:

CRL.M.C. 7469/2025 Page 3 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

"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 prescribed."1 Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.2, 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 1 Emphasis supplied.

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

CRL.M.C. 7469/2025 Page 4 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 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."3 3 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 7469/2025 Page 5 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

16.

In 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 19.10.2025. 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.

17.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 286/2025, dated 23.06.2025, registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, District South, Delhi, under Sections 498/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

18.

The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19.

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J MAY 25, 2026 'B/JM'/ CRL.M.C. 7469/2025 Page 6 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.