Allowed¶65

Manpreet Singh and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025CRL.M.C./8071/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC | CRL.M.C. 8071/2025 | Manpreet Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi | FIR No. 529/2021 (06.07.2021, P.S. Tilak Nagar) under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC quashed | s.528 BNSS / s.482 CrPC quashing of non-compoundable 498A offence upon settlement | Settlement Agreement 26.06.2025 Delhi Mediation Centre Tis Hazari; wife's no-objection affidavit; cohabitation resumed Aug 2025 | Guidelines of Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 applied | Petition allowed; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement (order dt. 14.11.2025).

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 529/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; parties directed to abide by the terms of the settlement; petition allowed and pending application disposed of. ¶65

Manpreet Singh and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 529/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; parties directed to abide by the terms of the settlement; petition allowed and pending application disposed of.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 529/2021 (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Tilak Nagar) and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed on the basis of the parties' settlement, notwithstanding that the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The impugned FIR No. 529/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed; parties to abide by the terms of the settlement.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant.

¶29

Key takeaways

Considering the matrimonial nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled and are happily residing together, the case is fit for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS: no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive, and continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.M.C. 8071/2025 (Delhi High Court, Sanjeev Narula J., 14.11.2025): Petition under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 529/2021 dated 06.07.2021 (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Tilak Nagar) arising from a 2012 Sikh-rites marriage. Following a voluntary Settlement Agreement dated 26.06.2025 executed at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, and Respondent No. 2's in-person no-objection with affidavit affirming peaceful cohabitation since August 2025, the Court held that inherent-power quashing under s.528 BNSS/s.482 CrPC extends even to non-compoundable offences (such as s.498A IPC) where accused and complainant have genuinely compromised, applying the Supreme Court guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641. Treating the matrimonial dispute as of predominantly civil/family character whose continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, the Court quashed the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings, allowed the petition, and directed the parties to abide by the settlement terms.

¶1

$~40

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 8071/2025

¶4

MANPREET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. R.B. Singh and Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocates Petitioners present.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State. SI Shweta, P.S. Tilak Nagar. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 (in-Person).

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 14.11.2025

¶11

This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks quashing of FIR No. 529/2021 dated 6^th July, 2021³ , registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴ at P.S. Tilak Nagar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are the inlaws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 23^rd April, 2012, as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. There is one child from the said marriage. Due to matrimonial

¶13

1 “BNSS”

¶14

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶15

3 “impugned FIR”

¶16

4 “IPC”

¶17

CRL.M.C. 8071/2025 Page 1 of 6

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:52

¶20

discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and parties have been living separately since. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail.

¶21

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later culminated into the impugned FIR.

¶22

The parties of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, and have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 26^th June, 2025. As part of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts and that she is now residing amicably with her husband, with no subsisting grievances.

¶23

Respondent No. 2, present in person and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and has filed an affidavit to this effect. She also affirms that she has been residing peacefully with her husband since August 2025; the issues with her in-laws arose from misunderstandings; and there has been no harassment, cruelty, or demand for dowry since her return. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶24

The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

¶25

It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can

¶26

CRL.M.C. 8071/2025 Page 2 of 6

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:52

¶29

compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. ,⁵ the Supreme Court 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:

¶30

“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:

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶34

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.

¶35

5 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶36

CRL.M.C. 8071/2025 Page 3 of 6

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:52

¶39

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.

¶40

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.”

¶41

[Emphasis Supplied] 8 . Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

¶42

& Anr. ,⁶ the Supreme Court had observed as under:

¶43

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶44

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶45

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is noncompoundable.

¶46

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶47

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶48

6 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶49

CRL.M.C. 8071/2025 Page 4 of 6

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:52

¶52

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶53

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶54

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶55

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶56

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶57

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶58

[Emphasis Supplied] 9. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement and are happily residing together, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction

¶59

CRL.M.C. 8071/2025 Page 5 of 6

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:52

¶62

under Section 528 of BNSS as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶63

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 529/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶64

Parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement.

¶65

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶66

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶67

NOVEMBER 14, 2025

¶68

¶69

CRL.M.C. 8071/2025 Page 6 of 6

¶70

This is a digitally signed order.

¶71

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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:52

Manpreet Singh and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Khatri Vs Jitender Kumar

Dilshad Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Manoj Nhati Vs State NCT of Delhi

Rajinder Singh Dagar Vs Devta Enterprises & Anr.

Riyazuddin Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Umesh Kumar Chandeliya and Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.