Harish Kumar & Ors v. State Ofnct of Delhi and Anr

O R D E R %

18.08.2026

¶1The petitioners have filed the present 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. 553/2025 dated 18.08.2025, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 74/79/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ["BNS"], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

¶2Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State, and learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

¶3The petitioners are present in Court and have been duly identified by their learned counsel. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. has been identified by her learned counsel. The Investigating Officer is not present in Court.

¶4The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

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

¶6Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 24.11.2023. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since August 2024. One daughter was born out of the wedlock.

¶7Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, pursuant to which the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners.

¶8Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was subsequently filed on 27.11.2025.

¶9During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 22.01.2026, whereby they agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ["HMA"]. Pursuant to the settlement, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims arising out of the marriage, including maintenance, permanent alimony, stridhan/dowry articles and all present and future claims. The settlement amount is to be paid in five instalments of Rs. 3,00,000/- each, with the fifth and final instalment The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. being payable at the time of recording of the statements of the parties in the proceedings for quashing of the impugned FIR. In addition, petitioner No. 1 has agreed to return to respondent No. 2 all the gold articles specified in Annexure A-1 to the Settlement Agreement at the time of recording of the parties' statements in the first motion petition under Section 13(B)(1) of the HMA.

¶10It was further agreed between the parties that the custody of the minor child shall remain with petitioner No. 1 and that respondent No. 2 shall not claim any custody or visitation rights in respect of the child.

¶11Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

¶12Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Although the said decree was not placed on record along with the petition, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 state that a decree of divorce under Section 13(B)(2) of the HMA was passed on 13.05.2026 by the learned Family Court in HMA No. 748/2026. A copy of the order dated 13.05.2026 has been handed over in Court and is taken on record.

¶13Respondent No. 2 submits that the allegation under Section 74 of the BNS [corresponding to Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860] against petitioner No. 4 arose out of a misunderstanding in the backdrop of the matrimonial disputes between the parties.

¶14In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶15The Supreme Court has consistently recognised that the High Courts, while exercising their inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC], may quash criminal proceedings arising from non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably settled their disputes, particularly in cases where continuation of the proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose and the settlement does not adversely affect any overriding public interest.

¶16The 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. 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. 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 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. 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

¶17In the present case, the proceedings arise out of matrimonial disputes between the parties, which have since culminated in the dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce. Respondent No. 2 has also stated that the allegation under Section 74 of the BNS [corresponding to Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860] against petitioner No. 4 arose from a misunderstanding in the backdrop of the matrimonial disputes. Further, respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. In view of the nature of the dispute, the settlement between the parties and the circumstances in which the proceedings arose, the possibility of the prosecution culminating in a conviction appears remote. Consequently, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and public resources.

¶18The settlement contemplates payment of a total sum of Rs. 4 Emphasis supplied. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. 15,00,000/- to respondent No. 2, out of which Rs. 12,00,000/- has already been paid. The balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today. Further, all the gold articles stipulated in Annexure A-1 to the Settlement Agreement have also been handed over to respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the terms of the settlement have been duly acted upon, and there remains no impediment to granting the relief sought in the present petition.

¶19In view of the foregoing discussion and the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 553/2025 dated 18.08.2025, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 74/79/3(5) of BNS, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶20The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

¶21The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands disposed of.

¶22It is, however, clarified that neither the settlement between the parties nor the present order shall, in any manner, prejudice or affect the rights and interests of the minor child, whose custody shall remain with petitioner No. 1. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 18, 2026 SS/SD/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010382912026 + CRL.M.C. 6038/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25230/2026 HARISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aashish Kumar Singh and Ms. Chitrakshi Vedi, Advocates. versus STATE OFNCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. Appearance for R-2 not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN