CRL.M.C./1814/2026 of OMKAR OJHA AND ORS. Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR on 22 September 2026

O R D E R

1. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 530/2021, registered under sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi, on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.

2. It is submitted that pursuant to this amicable settlement, the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

3. Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter “MoU”) executed between the parties, viz. the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, has been appended along with the present application. The same reads as under:

4. It is submitted that except for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000, the entire amount payable to respondent no. 2 in terms of the stipulation in the MoU stands paid by the petitioners. The same is confirmed by respondent no. 2.

5. A demand draft for the remaining amount, viz. Rs. 1,50,000, has been handed over to respondent no. 2 during the course of the hearing.

6. The parties jointly request that the FIR No. 530/2021, under sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi, be quashed on the basis of the MoU.

7. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 have been identified by the Investigating Officer (IO).

8. While discussing the inherent power of the High Court to quash non- compoundable offences under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”), the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 makes the following observations: “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated . The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” (emphasis supplied)

9. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Navneesh Aggarwal v. State of Haryana 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1680, while hearing an appeal against an order under section 482 of CrPC qua the settlement-based quashing of proceedings under sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, remarks: “14. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment. In the cases of Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”) and Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9178 of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”), this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord against the husband. The Court took note of the fact that the couple therein had divorced and held that in such a situation, to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law . The reasoning adopted therein applies with equal force to the facts of the present case.” (emphasis supplied)

10. In view of the circumstances, there is no impediment in allowing the present petition, as jointly prayed.

11. Accordingly, FIR No.530/2021 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed.

SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/cl/vk