CRL.M.C./7342/2026 of SH HARENDER & ORS. Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 30 September 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of FIR No.580/2020 dated 30.12.2020, registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at PS North Rohini, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married on 22.11.2015, and a daughter was born out of the wedlock on 30.01.2018. Petitioner nos.2 and Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:05.10.2026 12:07:51 Signature Not Verified

3 are the mother and the brother, respectively, of petitioner no.1.

3. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have been living separately since February 2019.

4. Respondent no.2 had filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being Ct. Case No.12735/2021, along with Ex. (Criminal) No.137/2023, before the learned JMFC, North- West, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The matter was referred to mediation, and a settlement was arrived at between the parties pursuant to mediation under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. The said Settlement Agreement dated 30.09.2024 has been filed as Annexure-C to the present petition. It reads as under:

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:05.10.2026 12:07:51 Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:05.10.2026 12:07:51 Signature Not Verified

5. Thus, the marital disputes between the parties were resolved in terms of the aforesaid settlement. The issue of custody of the minor daughter also stood resolved, with her custody remaining with respondent no.2. Subsequently, the first motion petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA No.2882/2024) was allowed on 13.11.2024, and the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:05.10.2026 12:07:51 Signature Not Verified

Marriage Act, 1955 by the learned Judge, Family Court, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2025 in HMA No.227/2025.

6. It is stated that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid at the time of recording of statements in the first motion petition, and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid at the time of recording of statements in the second motion petition. It further records that the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of quashing of the subject FIR.

7. A bank draft for the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent no.2 during the course of proceedings today.

8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that criminal cases having an overwhelmingly, and predominantly, civil flavour, including offences arising out of matrimony or family disputes, where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, and where the parties have resolved their entire dispute, stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing. The relevant observations are as under: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:05.10.2026 12:07:51 Signature Not Verified

Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

9. The subject FIR arises out of the matrimonial relationship between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2. The parties, who are present in person, confirm that the settlement to resolve the matrimonial disputes, was arrived at out of their own free will and volition.

10. Respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit/NOC stating that she has settled all her disputes with the petitioners and has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR.

11. It is noticed that one of the accused in the FIR, i.e., the father of petitioner no.1, is stated to have expired on 10.02.2025.

12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:05.10.2026 12:07:51 Signature Not Verified

is allowed.

13. FIR No.580/2020, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed.

14. The pending application also stands disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/cl,sd

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:05.10.2026 12:07:51 Signature Not Verified