CRL.M.C./5293/2026 of CHETAN GOSAIN & ORS. Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 28 July 2026

O R D E R

% 28.07.2026

1. The petitioners have filed 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”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 224/2024, dated 18.05.2024, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2.

Issue

notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Mohit Arora, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is present in Court, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are present through video conference, and are 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 as also by the Investigating Officer. At the request of Mr. Mohit Ramdeo, learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No. 2 [mother of petitioner No. 1] is exempted from appearance on medical grounds.

4. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 06.02.2022. One child was born from the wedlock on 09.08.2023. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, respondent No. 2 had left the matrimonial house with their minor child on 13.09.2023.

5. Respondent No. 2 then lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell against her husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, and brother-in-law, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the said persons.

6. Subsequently, by order on charge dated 21.04.2025, charges were framed against the petitioners herein under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled their disputes under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, as recorded in a Settlement dated 16.05.2026. The settlement records that the parties will withdraw all pending cases against each other, and shall start living together from January 2027.

8. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, who are present in Court and represented by counsel, state that they intend to resume cohabitation in a joint matrimonial home from January 2027, as the admission of the minor child to a school near the residence of petitioner No. 1 is yet to be worked out. They further state that, in the meantime, they have commenced cohabitation on weekends and during school holidays from 17.05.2026.

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

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

11. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

12. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

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: “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 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

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

13. In the present case, the dispute between the parties stems from a matrimonial relationship that has since been amicably resolved. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have reconciled and are living together on weekends and on school holidays since 17.05.2026, and intend to resume cohabitation in a joint matrimonial household from January 2027. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be prejudicial to their marital harmony and to the welfare of their minor child. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, 4 Emphasis supplied.

respondent No. 2 has unequivocally stated before this Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. The continuation of the criminal proceedings is, therefore, unlikely to lead to a conviction and would merely serve as a procedural formality, thereby imposing an unnecessary burden on the justice system and diverting valuable judicial resources without serving any meaningful purpose.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 224/2024, dated 18.05.2024, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 498/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

15. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

16. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 28, 2026 ‘B/KA’/