Shri Vikas and Ors. Vs the State NCT Delhi and Ors.

¶1

$~72-Q

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 1871/2026 SHRI VIKAS AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Gupta, Adv. versus THE STATE NCT DELHI AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC. SI Deepanshu Choudhary, PS Harsh Vihar.

¶4

Mr. BK Gupta, Adv. for R-2 along with R2.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R

¶7

% 03.07.2026

¶8

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of FIR No. 742/2020 dated 02.09.2020, registered at Police Station Harsh Vihar under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

¶9

Issue notice. Mr. Anand V. Khatri, learned Additional Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. B.K. Gupta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

¶10

The petitioners are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present before this Court and has been identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 1871/2026

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 06/07/2026 at 10:36:12

¶16

Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are his brother and sister, respectively, and petitioner No. 6 is his paternal uncle.

¶17

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 06.06.2015 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, and two children are born out of the said wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since 2020.

¶18

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell against her husband and his family members. Pursuant to the said complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 8. A chargesheet has been filed in the matter against the petitioners herein, whereupon charges under Section 323, 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, have been added. However, petitioner No. 5 passed away on 11.08.2020, and consequently proceedings qua her stand abated. In support thereof, a death certificate dated 04.01.2021, issued by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, has been annexed to the present petition.

¶19

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, by way of a Settlement Agreement dated 10.09.2025. The said settlement records that the parties have reconciled and that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have resumed cohabitation, along with their children, with effect from 05.08.2025.

¶20

Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned

¶21

W.P.(CRL) 1871/2026

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

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 06/07/2026 at 10:36:12

¶24

FIR.

¶25

The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, High Courts may exercise their inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 CrPC] to quash criminal proceedings, including in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the parties have arrived at a settlement and the continuation of such proceedings would not serve any larger public or societal interest. 13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ has held as follows:

¶26

“ 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

¶27

1 2012 10 SCC 303.

¶28

W.P.(CRL) 1871/2026

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 06/07/2026 at 10:36:12

¶32

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-andfast category can be prescribed. ”²

¶33

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:

¶34

“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:

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

2 Emphasis supplied.

¶41

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶42

W.P.(CRL) 1871/2026

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

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 06/07/2026 at 10:36:12

¶46

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.

¶47

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 .

¶48

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

¶49

In the present case, the dispute emanates from a matrimonial relationship, which now stands amicably resolved, and the parties have since resumed cohabitation. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not only be detrimental to the restoration of marital harmony but would also impede the reconciliation arrived at between the parties. It is also relevant to note that respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure of any kind. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to culminate in a conviction and would serve no useful purpose, while unnecessarily burdening the criminal justice system and consuming valuable judicial time and resources.

¶50

In view of the foregoing discussion and the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR

¶51

W.P.(CRL) 1871/2026

¶52

Page 5 of 6

¶53

This is a digitally signed order.

¶54

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 06/07/2026 at 10:36:12

¶55

No. 742/2020 dated 02.09.2020, registered at Police Station Harsh Vihar under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stands quashed.

¶56

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

¶57

The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of.

¶58

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶59

JULY 3, 2026 Tg/ AN/SD/

¶60

4 Emphasis supplied.

¶61

W.P.(CRL) 1871/2026

¶62

Page 6 of 6

¶63

This is a digitally signed order.

¶64

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 06/07/2026 at 10:36:12

Shri Vikas and Ors. v. the State NCT Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vikas and Ors. v. the State NCT Delhi and Ors.

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 Kumar Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors.

Parveen Rana Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Kajal and Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Ajay Pal Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shalu Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Ankit Manat Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Neetu Bisht Vs State NCT of Delhi

Ramesh Yadav Vs State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Satish Saini Vs Renu Saini & Ors.

Neeru Gupta & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Atif Aziz @ Kabir Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Rohit Tiwari and Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Sh Navdeep Singh Vs Smt Banpreet Kaur Bhatia & Anr.

Karan Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi)