Chandan Kumar vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) And Anr on 11 February, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Chandan Kumar vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) And Anr on 11 February, 2026

1. The petitioner has 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. 250/2018 dated 10.09.2018, registered at Police Station Mandawli, Fazal Pur, District East, 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. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Bikram Chand Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

CRL.M.C. 1186/2026 Page 1 of 6

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 12/02/2026 at 21:55:16

4. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1.

5. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 21.04.2015. One female child was born from the wedlock on 21.06.2016. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since July 2016.

6. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Mandawali, Fazalpur, against her husband and her in-laws, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered on 10.09.2018. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed. However, the charges against the in-laws were dropped, vide order dated 12.09.2023, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), East District, Karkardooma Courts. The case [Cr. Case 1104/2019] is currently pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karkardooma Courts, and is next listed on 12.03.2026 for prosecution evidence.

7. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 15.01.2026, under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts.

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

9. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

10. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by Mr. Sharma and the IO.

CRL.M.C. 1186/2026 Page 2 of 6

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 12/02/2026 at 21:55:16

11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on 09.02.2026 [in HMA No. 248/2026].

12. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of 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.

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, 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

CRL.M.C. 1186/2026 Page 3 of 6

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 12/02/2026 at 21:55:16 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 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.

Emphasis supplied.

(2014) 6 SCC 466.

CRL.M.C. 1186/2026 Page 4 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

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 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.

15. The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 and a further sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- by CRL.M.C. 1186/2026 Page 5 of 6 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 12/02/2026 at 21:55:16 way of FDRs in the name of the minor daughter. Out of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- till date. A Demand Draft in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and an FDR of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of the minor child have been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

16. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 250/2018 dated 10.09.2018, registered at Police Station Mandawli, Fazal Pur, East District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

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

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

19. 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.

PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 11, 2026 SS/JM/ 4 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 1186/2026 Page 6 of 6

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 12/02/2026 at 21:55:16

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders