CRL.M.C./7242/2026 of DEVENDER SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR on 28 September 2026

1. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), the petitioners seek quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 0350/2019 dated 22nd August, 2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), at Police Station (“PS”) Mahendra Park, North West District, Delhi.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Kiran Bairwa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”), accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Shalu, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 2.

3. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 are present in person before this Court and are identified by their respective counsels and the Investigating Officer (“IO”).

4. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent no. 2, who was the wife of petitioner no. 1, daughter in law of petitioner nos. 2 and 3, and sister-in-law of petitioner no. 4.

5. The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnised on 26th January, 2019, according to Hindu rites and customs. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties started living separately. No child was born out of the wedlock.

6. Respondent no. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women (“CAW”) Cell, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR.

7. Subsequently, upon completion of the investigation, a Chargesheet came to be filed by the IO in November, 2020, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court, Delhi, under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC.

8. During the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 06th November, 2024, before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi.

9. This Court is informed that as per the Settlement Agreement, the petitioner no. 1 was to pay a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- to respondent no. 2, by way of three instalments amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,10,000/-, respectively. Out of the said settlement amount, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no. 2 earlier.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has handed over a

Demand Draft to respondent no. 2 for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-, and the same has been duly accepted by respondent no. 2.

11. Respondent no. 2, who is present in Court submits that with the indulgence of well-wishers and family members of both the parties, they have amicably settled all their disputes and arrived at a Settlement Agreement, out of their own free will and consent, without any fear, coercion, or under influence and thus, she does not wish to pursue the present matter any further.

12. This Court is informed that along with the Settlement Deed, a Divorce Decree dated 14th October, 2025, has also been executed between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, by way of which the marriage has been dissolved in accordance with their personal laws.

13. Learned APP for the State submits that on account of the matrimonial dispute having been settled, she has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

14. This Court notes that despite certain offences being classified as non- compoundable under the IPC, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC corresponding to 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.

15. 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)

16. The present dispute between the parties stems from their marriage, which has 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.

17. 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.

18. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that FIR No. 0350/2019 dated 22nd August, 2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, at PS Mahendra Park, North West

District, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

19. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the Settlement Deed.

20. The present petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 ak