Bal Kishan And Others vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 28 January, 2026

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bal Kishan And Others vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 28 January, 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. 257/2021 dated 06.07.2021, registered at Police Station Jafrabad, North East District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ["DP Act"], alongwith 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. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court in person and states that she does not wish to avail the assistance of counsel.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 29.04.2018 CRL.M.C. 722/2026 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 30/01/2026 at 20:42:27 in Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. One male child was born from the wedlock on 13.02.2020. Differences arose during the course of the marriage, and the parties have been residing separately since the birth of the child.

4. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell against her husband, petitioner No. 1, and his family members, alleging harassment for dowry, assault, repeated death threats, and abuse inflicted upon her, on the basis of which the subject FIR was registered on 06.07.2021. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 19.06.2022. The case [CR Cases 4783/2022] is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and is next listed on 13.04.2026 for framing of charges.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled their disputes before the Counsellor, Family Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on 18.03.2025 in Maintenance Case No. 238/2024. As per the settlement, the parties agreed to resume cohabitation alongwith the minor child and to perform their matrimonial obligations. Respondent No. 2 agreed to withdraw the maintenance case as well as the Domestic Violence case bearing No. 505/2024 filed against the petitioners, and petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 as pocket money.

6. The petitioners are present, and are identified by Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel, and the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by the IO.

7. Learned counsel for the parties submit that pursuant to the CRL.M.C. 722/2026 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 30/01/2026 at 20:42:27 settlement, the parties have reconciled and are living together for the last nine months. Respondent No. 2 affirms that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence, and she has no objection to quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

8. Although the offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the DP Act are 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.

9. 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, 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

CRL.M.C. 722/2026 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 30/01/2026 at 20:42:27 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 2 prescribed."

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.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on 2 Emphasis supplied.

(2014) 6 SCC 466.

CRL.M.C. 722/2026 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

10. The present dispute is purely matrimonial in nature. The parties have reconciled and are living together. 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 their continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.

11. Respondent No. 2 states that she is receiving a monthly sum of Rs. 2,000/- from petitioner No. 1 as per the settlement. There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

12. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and proceedings arising out of FIR No. 257/2021 dated 06.07.2021, registered 4 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 722/2026 Page 5 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

13. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 28, 2026 'Bhupi/JM'/ CRL.M.C. 722/2026 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 30/01/2026 at 20:42:27

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders