CRL.M.C./5592/2026 of VIPIN TOMAR AND ORS. Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. on 4 August 2026

O R D E R

%

04.08.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”) (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 145/2020 dated 02.06.2020, registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Shahdara, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved pursuant to a settlement.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and has been identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.

4. The impugned FIR came to be registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are the parents of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 3 is his brother, and petitioner No. 5 is his sister.

5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 12.05.2014 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since 10.11.2019.

6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, pursuant to which the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners.

7. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed against the petitioners, and charges have since been framed against them.

8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved all their disputes by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated 20.08.2025, whereby respondent No. 2 agreed to accept a total settlement amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards permanent alimony and in full and final satisfaction of all her claims, including maintenance (past, present and future) and arrears thereof. The said settlement amount has already been paid. The parties had also agreed to return to each other the gold and silver articles belonging to the other, and it is stated that the said articles have since been duly exchanged in terms of the MoU.

9. In terms of the MoU, the parties have agreed to institute proceedings for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent immediately upon the quashing of the impugned FIR and thereafter obtain a decree of divorce in accordance with law. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on instructions from respondent No. 2, submits that she is satisfied with the terms of the settlement, which have been duly complied with. She has received the entire settled amount, and has no surviving claims whatsoever against petitioner No. 1.

10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

12. It is well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), may, in appropriate cases, quash criminal proceedings involving even non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, provided that such exercise of jurisdiction does not adversely affect any overriding public interest.

13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has held as follows:

“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.”2 Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under: 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

“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.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not

quashing the criminal cases.”4

14. In the present case, the criminal proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute. The parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and have agreed, in terms of the MoU, to seek dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent upon quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2 has appeared before this Court and unequivocally affirmed that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, of her own free will and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the possibility of the proceedings culminating in a conviction is remote. In the circumstances, permitting the prosecution to continue would serve no useful purpose and would merely result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and public resources.

15. In terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims. The entire settlement amount of Rs. 20,000/- has already been received by respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the terms of the settlement, insofar as the monetary obligations are concerned, stand duly complied with.

16. In view of the foregoing and the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 145/2020 dated 02.06.2020, registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Shahdara, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 4 Emphasis supplied.

17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

18. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 4, 2026 ‘pv’/SD/