CRL.M.C./7663/2026 of VINEET SHARMA AND ORS Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR on 9 October 2026

O R D E R

%

09.10.2026

CRL.M.A. 31946/2026 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7663/2026

3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’]1 seeking to quash the FIR No. 593/2020 dated 03.09.2020 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code [‘IPC’], Police Station Model Town, Delhi [‘subject FIR’] and all 1 Corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’]

consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.

4. Issue Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned APP, appearing on behalf of the State, accepts notice.

5. Mr. Aman Sahani, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, appears on advance service and accepts notice.

6. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No. 2 are personally present in Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) and their learned counsels, respectively.

7. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were married on 09.03.2015. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 2019, and at the instance of Respondent No. 2, the subject FIR was registered.

8. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved all their disputes by way of a Settlement dated 15.07.2026 to put a quietus to the dispute.

9. The Settlement contemplates payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of disputes. The said amount was agreed to be paid in 3 instalments, namely, Rs.6,00,000/- at the time of recording the statements in the first motion petition under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [‘HMA’]; Rs. 12,00,000/- at the time of recording of statements in the second motion petition under Section 13(B)(2) of the HMA; and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of quashing of the present FIR.

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

11. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, the marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, vide judgment dated 23.09.2026 passed by the Family Court in HMA No. 1722/2026.

12. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- has already been paid to Respondent No. 2 through a demand draft and the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is being paid to her today by a Demand Draft bearing No. 504612, dated 09.10.2026, drawn upon ICICI Bank.

13. This Court has interacted with Respondent No. 2. She confirms the submissions made by the Petitioner. She also confirms that she has executed the affidavit recording her no objection to quashing the subject FIR, which is at running page 99 of this petition. She also confirms receipt of Rs. 18 lakhs and a demand draft for the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. She states that in view of the amicable resolution of disputes, she does not want to pursue this FIR any further.

14. Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the State has no objection to the relief sought in the petition. He further states that the matter is listed before the trial court on 16.12.2026 for recording of prosecution evidence.

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

FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

16. This Court has heard the parties and perused the record.

17. With respect to offences that are non-compoundable in nature, the Supreme Court has held in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2 that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the 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 complainant. Where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and does not involve any overriding societal or public interest, quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of law. Similar principles were reiterated in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, wherein the Supreme Court held that, while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to be guided by the considerations of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of any Court.

18. This is a case of criminal proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties, wherein the marriage has been dissolved. The disputes are thus private in nature, and there is no overriding public interest involved. The parties have agreed to part ways, and keeping the proceedings alive would only remind them of the bitterness. In view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute without any coercion or undue influence, and the remote and bleak chances of conviction of the Petitioners, 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings arising out of the present FIR would serve no useful purpose, besides imposing an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

19. In view of the above, the FIR bearing FIR No. 593/2020 dated 03.09.2020 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Model Town, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

20. Parties shall remain bound and abide by the terms of settlement.

21. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. The pending application is disposed of.

22. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 9, 2026/msh/aj

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466 [Paragraph No. 29]