CRL.M.C./6886/2026 of PRADEEP SINGHANIA & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR & ANR. on 7 October 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 922/2024 dated 15th October, 2024, registered under Sections 85/316/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC and ST Act”), at Police Station (“PS”) Samaipur Badli, Outer North, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Issue Notice.

3. Notice is accepted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State as well as by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

4. Petitioner no. 1 is present in person before this Court, while petitioner nos. 2 to 4 as well as respondent no. 2 are present before this Court through Video Conferencing (“VC”). The parties are duly identified by their respective counsels as well as by the concerned Investigating Officer (“IO”).

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

6. At the outset, it is noted that respondent no. 2 is the wife of petitioner no. 1, daughter-in-law of petitioner nos. 2 and 3, and sister-in-law of petitioner no. 4.

7. The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnised on 19th July, 2024, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 09th August, 2024.

8. Respondent no. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell (“CAW”) against the petitioners herein which culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR.

9. Subsequently, upon completion of the investigation, a Chargesheet came to be filed by the IO under Sections 85/316(2)/3(5)/115(2) of the BNS

and Section 3 of the SC and ST Act.

10. This Court is informed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the petitioners and respondent no. 2 have mutually entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) on 06th June, 2026, before the Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

11. It is submitted that as per the terms of the MoU, petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 11,00,000/- to respondent no. 2, towards the full and final settlement of all their claims.

12. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no. 2 and divorce between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 also stands finalised.

13. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the nature of the disputes between the parties, and the MoU arrived at subsequently, the State has no serious objection to the present petition.

14. This Court has interacted with respondent no. 2 who submits that with the indulgence of well-wishers and family members, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and arrived at an MoU, out of their own free will and consent and without any fear or coercion. She further confirms the fact that she has received a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- from petitioner no. 1. She, thus, submits that she does not wish to pursue the present matter any further and has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

15. This Court notes that despite certain offences being classified as non- compoundable under the BNS, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, High Courts have proceeded to quash such proceedings on account of a settlement between the parties. In Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court recognized that such an approach serves the ends of justice by bringing the litigation to an end and preventing its needless continuation when the likelihood of conviction has become remote and bleak on account of a compromise.

16. In this regard, attention may further be afforded to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitender Raghuvanshi and Others Versus Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, whereby it has been held as under: “xxx xxx xxx

14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.

17. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 4-7-2012 passed in Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi v. Aarkshi Kendra Police Mahila Thana [ Misc. Criminal Case No. 2877 of 2012, decided on 4-7-2012 (MP)] and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Class I, Indore.

xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)

17. The present dispute between the parties stems from their marriage, which has since been dissolved by divorce. Having regard to the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court, and given that respondent no. 2 has categorically stated before this Court, without ambiguity, that the settlement was arrived at of her own free will, this Court finds no reason to doubt its voluntariness.

18. Further, in light of the same, this Court is of the view that there is little likelihood of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction. In fact, their continuation would be an empty formality, serving only to add to the burden on the justice system and to consume public resources needlessly.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no impediment in allowing the present petition.

20. Accordingly, FIR No. 922/2024 dated 15th October, 2024, registered at PS Samaipur Badli, Outer North, Delhi, under Sections 85/316/3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC and ST Act, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.

21. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the MoU.

22. The present petition, along with pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J OCTOBER 7, 2026/SK