CRL.M.C./5538/2026 of MAHENDRA & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF GOVT & ANR. on 29 September 2026

O R D E R

%

29.09.2026

1. These petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seek quashing of cross-FIRs arising out of the same matrimonial dispute. The details of the FIRs are as under:

(i) In CRL.M.C. 2049/2026, FIR No. 384/2023 dated 11th August, 2023, under Sections 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1 registered at P.S. Sonia Vihar, on the complaint of Mahender Singh against Arvind Kumar @ Monu, Yogesh Kumar and Brij Pal; and

(ii) In CRL.M.C. 5538/2026, FIR No. 387/2023 dated 11th August, 2023, under Sections 354/354B/506/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Sonia Vihar, on the complaint of Xx against Mahendra, Rameshwar Singh, Naresh Chand and Rakesh Kumar (deceased).

2. The allegations in FIR No. 384/2023 relate to an incident dated 19th July, 2023. Mahender Singh alleged that, against the backdrop of matrimonial disputes with his wife, he was assaulted by Arvind Kumar @ Monu and Yogesh Kumar, his brothers-in-law, and Brij Pal, his father-in- law. According to him, Arvind Kumar @ Monu initially assaulted him, whereafter Yogesh Kumar and Brij Pal also joined the altercation and assaulted him with a stick, causing injuries for which he underwent medical treatment.

3. Conversely, FIR No. 387/2023 was registered on the complaint of Xx, wife of Mahender Singh, arising out of the matrimonial discord between them. She alleged that Mahender Singh, her husband, had assaulted her and 1 “IPC”

that, during the incident on 19th July, 2023, Rameshwar Singh, Rakesh Kumar and Naresh, her brothers-in-law, also assaulted her, touched her inappropriately and tore her clothes. She further alleged that they abused and threatened her and her family members. Rakesh Kumar has since expired.

4. The parties state that, during the pendency of the proceedings, they amicably resolved their disputes before the Counselling Cell, Family Court, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and entered into a settlement dated 28th February, 2025, a copy whereof has been placed on record. Pursuant thereto, Mahender Singh and Xx resumed cohabitation along with their children, and the partes agreed to withdraw the proceedings instituted against each other and cooperate in seeking quashing of both FIRs. The settlement was subsequently reaffirmed through a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16th April, 2026.

5. The complainants in both FIRs are present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. They confirm that the disputes have been amicably resolved and state that the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which has since been resolved. They do not wish to pursue their respective FIRs. Xx further confirms that she has resumed cohabitation with Mahender Singh along with their children and that they have been residing together peacefully. They state that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any force, coercion or undue influence, and have no objection to quashing of the impugned FIRs. No-Objection Affidavits to this effect have also been placed on record. The Petitioners in both petitions are also present and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for quashing of the impugned FIRs.

6. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties. It is true that while the offences under Sections 354 and 354(B) IPC are non- compoundable in nature, the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC are compoundable in certain cases. At the same time, it is well settled that in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to 482 CrPC), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,2 the Supreme Court held as follows: “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. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(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.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

7. The allegations in the present case have their genesis in a matrimonial 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466

dispute between Mahender Singh and Xx, which also involved their family members and resulted in registration of cross-FIRs. While the offences under Sections 354 and 354B IPC are not strictly in personam, the Court must also account for the practical possibility of conviction where the affected parties have voluntarily settled their disputes and are no longer inclined to support the prosecution. In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction becomes remote.

8. In the present case, the parties have comprehensively resolved their disputes and significantly, Mahender Singh and Xx have resumed cohabitation along with their children. The complainants in both FIRs have categorically stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings and have confirmed that the settlement is voluntary and free from coercion. Having regard to the genesis of the dispute, the voluntary settlement and the unequivocal stand of the complainants, continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. The Court, therefore, considers it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice.

9. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 384/2023 dated 11th August, 2023 and FIR No. 387/2023 dated 11th August, 2023, both registered at P.S. Sonia Vihar, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

10. However, since the State machinery was set in motion on account of the impugned FIRs, it is appropriate to impose costs on the parties. Accordingly, each of the Petitioners shall deposit costs of INR 3,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of payment shall be furnished to the concerned Investigating Officer.

11. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.

12. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/ab