Sandeep Sharma And Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 30 April, 2026

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sandeep Sharma And Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 30 April, 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. 177/2011 dated 11.07.2011, registered at Police Station Sagar Pur, District South-West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], on the ground of settlement.

2. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 17.11.2010. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since July 2011. One child was born from the wedlock on 09.09.2011.

CRL.M.C. 7201/2025 Page 1 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:42:47

3. Subsequently, the impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against three accused persons, namely her husband and parents-in-law [petitioners herein], alleging demands for dowry as well as physical and mental cruelty. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A/406/323/34 of the IPC.

4. The parties have since entered into a settlement dated 17.12.2024, under the aegis of the Counseling Cell, Family Court, South-West District, Delhi.

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

6. Petitioner No. 1 is present in Court, and has been duly identified by his learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is present in person, and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. She declines the assistance of counsel.

7. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, passed by the Family Court on 15.07.2025.

8. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all disputes. I am informed that an amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- has already been paid in terms of the settlement. A demand draft for the remaining amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today. The settlement further records that custody of the minor child shall remain with respondent No. 2.

9. The only dispute between the parties concerns the payment of the minor child's school fees from the date of the settlement until today. In CRL.M.C. 7201/2025 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:42:47 this regard, Clause 2 of the settlement records that petitioner No. 1 shall pay school fees of Rs. 7,000/- per month until the quashing of the impugned FIR as well as FIR No. 258/2011, registered under Sections 120B/149/323/325/384/454/460/506/509 of the IPC, at Police Station Sagar Pur, District South-West, Delhi, at the instance of petitioner No. 3.

10. The payment of Rs. 7,000/- per month, calculated from December 2024 to April 2026 [i.e., 17 months], amounts to Rs. 1,19,000/-. Pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2026, petitioner No. 1 has produced receipts to show that he deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the child's school between December 2024 and June 2025. This leaves a balance of Rs. 69,000/- to be paid.

11. Petitioner No. 1 has handed over a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 63,000/- and has also made a cash payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 6,000/- to respondent No. 2.

12. The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

13. Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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.

CRL.M.C. 7201/2025 Page 3 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:42:47

14. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, 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 and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Emphasis supplied.

(2014) 6 SCC 466.

CRL.M.C. 7201/2025 Page 4 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:42:47 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 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 4 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 7201/2025 Page 5 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:42:47

15. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.

16. The settlement amount of Rs. 28,00,000/-, as well as the child's school fees up to April 2026, have been paid to respondent No. 2. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

17. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 177/2011 dated 11.07.2011, registered at Police Station Sagar Pur, District South-West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/323/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

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

19. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands disposed of.

20. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody remains with respondent No. 2.

21. In the event that any proceedings remain with regard to FIR No. 258/2011 registered at Police Station Sagar Pur, District South-West, Delhi, it shall be open to the parties to take necessary steps.

CRL.M.C. 7201/2025 Page 6 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:42:47

22. The next date of hearing, i.e. 04.08.2026, stands cancelled.

PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 30, 2026 'sv/KA'/ CRL.M.C. 7201/2025 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:42:47

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders