Sh Sameer Sehgal & Ors. v. the State, Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2026CRL.M.C./1755/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Matrimonial FIR (Ss. 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Vivek Vihar, FIR No. 408/2016 dt. 21.09.2016) quashed by Delhi HC in CRL.M.C. 1755/2026 under S. 528 BNSS (erstwhile S. 482 CrPC) on full amicable settlement (₹46 lakh total; balance ₹5 lakh handed over in Court by DD) and divorce decree; non-compoundable S. 498A quashed on compromise applying Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 parameters; legality of settlement and child-custody rights expressly left unexamined/unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 408/2016 dated 21.09.2016 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ¶¶62

Sh Sameer Sehgal & Ors. Vs the State, Govt of NCT of Delhi… — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 408/2016 dated 21.09.2016 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 408/2016 (PS Vivek Vihar) for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

Given the amicable resolution of the disputes and the nature of the matrimonial dispute, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive; continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, making it a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶¶58

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 408/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶¶59

Key takeaways

The Court has not gone into the legality of the settlement or any right in relation to the custody of the minor child.obiter¶¶60
The legal rights of the minor child will not be affected, in any manner whatsoever, by the present order.obiter¶¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J., oral) allowed CRL.M.C. 1755/2026 and quashed FIR No. 408/2016 dated 21.09.2016 (PS Vivek Vihar) for offences under Ss. 498A/406/34 IPC together with all consequential proceedings, as the matrimonial dispute had been fully and amicably settled — total settlement ₹46,00,000/-, of which ₹41,00,000/- stood paid and the balance ₹5,00,000/- was handed over in Court by Demand Draft No. 504713 dated 12.02.2026 (ICICI Bank) — with the parties having since obtained a decree of divorce following settlement before the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara KKD, Delhi (04.06.2025). Although the offence under S. 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the Court exercised its inherent power under S. 528 BNSS (erstwhile S. 482 CrPC), guided by the parameters laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 — criminal cases arising out of matrimonial relationship/family disputes having an overwhelmingly civil character being fit for quashing on compromise where continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the legality of the settlement or any right relating to custody of the minor child, and that the minor child's legal rights stand unaffected by the order.

¶1

$~78

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 11^th March, 2026

¶4

+ CRL.M.C. 1755/2026 & CRL.M.A. 7167/2026

¶5

SH SAMEER SEHGAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. S.K. Dayal, Advocate along with Petitioners.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with SI Sumeet Poonia, PS Vivek Vihar. Mr. Mohit Taneja, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

¶10

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 408/2016 dated 21.09.2016, registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The charge sheet has been filed in the present case.

¶11

It is averred that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 24.05.2010, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties due to which the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 started living

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2026 CRL.M.C. 8835/2025 15:24:27

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

separately. The Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of Petitioner No.1.

¶16

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against the petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later culminated into the present FIR.

¶17

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties before the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdra KKD, Delhi on 04.06.2025, out of their own free will, without any force, pressure, undue influence, misrepresentation or mistake. The Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 have also obtained a decree of divorce and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶18

In terms of the settlement, out of the total settlement amount of ₹46,00,000/-, an amount of ₹41,00,000/- already stands paid to Respondent No. 2, and the balance settlement amount of ₹5,00,000/has been handed over to Respondent No. 2 in Court today by way of Demand Draft No. 504713 dated 12.02.2026 drawn on by ICICI Bank, Delhi-Vivek Vihar.

¶19

The parties are present in person in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 7. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court states that all the disputes have since been resolved. She submits that the parties have already obtained divorce and she has no remaining grievance against the Petitioner. She states that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed.

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2026 CRL.M.C. 8835/2025 15:24:27

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

Offence under Sections 406 of the IPC is compoundable whereas the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable.

¶24

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNSS ’) [ erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as

¶25

under:-

¶26

“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:

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2026 CRL.M.C. 8835/2025 15:24:27

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.”

¶36

(emphasis supplied)

¶37

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2026 CRL.M.C. 8835/2025 15:24:27

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2026 CRL.M.C. 8835/2025 15:24:27

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶56

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.”

¶57

(emphasis supplied)

¶58

Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶59