Kishan Singh and Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kishan Singh and Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim disposal: exemption application allowed subject to all just exceptions; parties referred to Samadhan – Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre with appearance before the learned Mediator on 24.02.2026 and liberty to the Mediator to take counsellor assistance towards a comprehensive settlement on the welfare and best interests of the children; the question of quashing Section 306 IPC proceedings on the basis of a settlement left open; parties free to approach the Court afresh if and when a settlement is arrived at. No quashing of the FIR proceedings was ordered at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 269/2012 (Police Station Vivek Vihar; Sections 306, 34 and 498-A IPC) should be quashed on the basis of the Compromise Deed dated 04.02.2026. +2 more

Court's answer

The petition was disposed of with the aforesaid directions (referral to mediation), leaving it open to the parties to approach the Court afresh if and when a settlement is arrived at; no quashing was ordered and no final view was expressed on the quashing prayer.

Ratio / Principle

The exemption application (CRL.M.A. 5505/2026) was allowed, subject to all just exceptions, and stands disposed of.

Key takeaways

Since the Compromise Deed was entered into without the intervention of a counsellor or of the Court, and the best-interests question for the children had not been independently examined, the parties were referred to Samadhan – Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, to appear before the learned Mediator on 24.02.2026, who was requested to take the assistance of a counsellor, if required, so that a properly considered and comprehensive settlement agreement, particularly with regard to the welfare and best interests of the children, may be placed before the Court.ratio¶19
On the competing submissions regarding quashing of Section 306 IPC proceedings on the basis of a settlement (Daxaben cited by the Additional Public Prosecutor; Vipin Suneja cited by the petitioners' counsel on exercise of Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction), the Court clarified that the said question is left open for consideration at the appropriate stage.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J.), order dated 18.02.2026 in CRL.M.C. 1370/2026 — Kishan Singh and others v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another: Interim disposal of a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 269/2012 dated 16.09.2012, Police Station Vivek Vihar, registered initially under Sections 306 and 34 IPC, with Section 498-A IPC incorporated in the charge sheet dated 07.11.2012, on the basis of a privately executed Compromise Deed dated 04.02.2026 between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 (complainant and brother of the deceased wife of petitioner No. 1). Observing that the Compromise Deed was entered into without the intervention of a counsellor or the Court, so that the best interests of the two children of petitioner No. 1 and the deceased (aged 17 and 15, in the custody of respondent No. 2, with the Deed contemplating handover of custody to petitioner No. 1) had not been independently examined, the Court referred the parties to Samadhan – Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (appearance fixed for 24.02.2026) and requested the Mediator to take counsellor assistance so that a comprehensive settlement agreement on the children's welfare and best interests could be placed before the Court. The Additional Public Prosecutor relied on Daxaben v. State of Gujarat [(2022) 16 SCC 117] to contend that Section 306 IPC proceedings ought not to be quashed on settlement, while the petitioners relied on Vipin Suneja v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2022 SCC OnLine Del 5224] on quashing under Section 482 CrPC in appropriate circumstances; the Court expressly left this question open for consideration at the appropriate stage and disposed of the petition, leaving the parties free to approach the Court afresh if and when a settlement is arrived at. No quashing ordered; no final view expressed.