Surender Singh Toor & ORS. v. The State(Govt. Of NCT, Delhi) & ANR.

$~74-Q *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ SURENDER SINGH TOOR & ORS.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Narender Mukhi, Advocate.

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

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.

R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 16.04.2026 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. 476/2016 dated 24.06.2016, registered at Police Station Saket, District South, New Delhi under Sections 498/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 20.06.2007. Two children were born from the wedlock on 17.04.2008 and 26.08.2011, respectively. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they started living separately since January 2015.

3.

Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the Crime Against Women Cell on 14.07.2015, which culminated in the impugned FIR against her husband and his family members. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the petitioners herein.

4.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding ["MoU"] dated 03.04.2025. The MoU contemplates reconciliation between the parties, and records that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 have resumed cohabitation.

5.

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

6.

The petitioners are present in Court, and have been duly identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. She states that she does not wish to seek the assistance of counsel, including legal aid counsel. 7.

The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure, and that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since been residing together alongwith their children.

8.

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 powers under Section 482 of CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

9.

The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, 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 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."2 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

2 Emphasis supplied.

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

Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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.

(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 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.

oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."4 10.

In the present case, the dispute arises out of a matrimonial relationship which now stands amicably resolved. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have reconciled and are residing together. In these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be detrimental to their marital harmony and the welfare of their minor children.

11.

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, respondent No. 2 has also unequivocally affirmed that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence. The likelihood of conviction is, therefore, remote. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would result only in unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and resources. 12.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 476/2016 dated 24.06.2016, registered at Police Station Saket, District South, New Delhi under Sections 498/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

13.

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 16, 2026 'pv/KA'/ 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.