CRL.M.C./7328/2026 of SH. BHEEM SINGH & ORS. Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. on 29 September 2026

O R D E R

%

29.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 30658/2026 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 0179/2024 dated 10.06.2024 [‘impugned FIR’] for offences under Sections 1 Corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr. P.C.’)

498A, 406, 34 IPC2 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [‘D.P. Act’], registered at P.S. Madhu Vihar, Delhi and chargesheet under Sections 498A, 406, 34, 323, 342, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and further proceedings culminating from the same.

4. Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [‘APP’] appearing on behalf of the State, and Mr. Anoop Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, on advance service.

5. Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are physically present in Court, are identified by the respective learned counsels and the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’).

6. It is stated, in the petition, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 solemnized their marriage on 02.03.2014 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. On 12.02.2019 a female child was born out of the wedlock, who is presently 6 years old. Owing to temperamental differences and matrimonial disputes, the parties started living separately from each other since 02.06.2022.

7. The impugned FIR came to be registered at the instance of Respondent no. 2, who was at the relevant time, the wife of the Petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 are the father, brother and sister-in-law of the Petitioner No. 1 respectively, and were accordingly arrayed as co-accused in the said FIR.

8. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 19.09.2024, and the case is presently pending before the learned JMFC Court, with the next date of hearing on 20.11.2026.

2 Indian Penal Code, 1860

9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement out of Court and in this regard a Memorandum of Understanding [‘MoU’] dated 14.05.2025 has also been executed between the parties.

10. Mr. Subhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the marriage between the Petitioner no. 1 and Respondent no. 2 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, granted vide judgement and decree dated 07.07.2025, passed by the learned Family Court. 10.1 He states that as per clause ‘4’ of the MoU, Petitioner no. 1 has purchased an immovable property bearing Khasra No. 669, Rana Park, Siraspur, Delhi – 110042 [‘property’] in the name of the minor child and Respondent no. 2. He states that the title documents of the said property have been handed over to Respondent no. 2 and she is in the actual physical possession of the property. He states that the property has been selected/identified by Respondent No. 2 and thereafter, purchased by Petitioner No. 1. 10.2 He states that the sole custody of the minor child shall remain with Respondent no. 2 and the visitation rights of Petitioner no. 1 herein are documented at clause 5(iii) of the MoU. 10.3 He states that the MoU was entered into voluntarily by the parties, of their own free will, and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. The settlement between the parties thus stands fully satisfied. 10.4 He states that in these circumstances, the parties have approached the Court for quashing of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings including the charge-sheet on the basis of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties.

11. This Court has interacted with Respondent no. 2. She confirms the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. She also confirms that she is in actual physical possession of the property. She confirms signing the MOU and also her affidavit recording her ‘No Objection’ is filed as Annexure P-5 to this petition.

12. Learned APP states that the State has no objection to the relief sought in this petition. She states that though the charge-sheet has been filed, charges are yet to be framed.

13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab3, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement may be exercised where such exercise is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. The Court has further held that, where the dispute is overwhelmingly and predominantly of a private or civil nature, including disputes arising out of matrimonial or family relationships, and the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the proceedings would result in injustice despite the settlement. Similar principles were reiterated in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr4 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.

14. In the present case, the criminal proceedings arise out of matrimonial 3 (2012) 10 SCC 303 at paras 58 and 61 4 (2014) 6 SCC 466 at para 29 (29.1 -29.5)

discord between the parties, which marriage has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Respondent No. 2 has also appeared before this Court and unequivocally affirmed that the MoU was entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence.

15. Considering the above settlement arrived at between the parties and the chances of conviction of the Petitioner being remote and bleak, there is no useful purpose of continuing with proceedings of the impugned FIR as it would be misuse of the process of the Court and an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer and a sheer waste of judicial time and public resources. The MoU has been implemented to the satisfaction of the parties. There remains no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

16. Consequently, the FIR No.179/2024 under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Madhu Vihar Delhi, charge sheet under Sections 498A, 406, 34, 323, 342, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. ACT, the chargesheet and further proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

17. It is directed that the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 shall remain bound by the terms of the MoU.

18. The MoU provides that the sole custody of the minor child shall remain with Respondent No. 2, subject to specified visitation rights in favor of the Petitioner No. 1, as documented at clause 5(iii) of the MoU. Petitioner No. 1 has also purchased the property (as narrated above) in the name of Respondent No. 2 and a minor child. It is clarified that this order shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the independent legal rights and entitlement of minor child qua Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 nor bind the minor child. The parties confirm that they understand this legal position qua minor’s rights.

19. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed. Pending application, if any, is disposed of as infructuous.

20. 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 SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/rhc/IB