Allowed¶14

Shri Arun Jain & Ors. v. the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2026CRL.M.C./221/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 221/2026; quashing of FIR on settlement; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 CrPC; Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC; Section 354A IPC charge not pressed; Section 164 CrPC statement; non-compoundable offence; inherent power of High Court; matrimonial dispute; FIR No. 235/2024 P.S. Subhash Place; Settlement Agreement 19.09.2025; Rs. 11,00,000/- paid; divorce by mutual consent 22.11.2025; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; Prateek Jalan, J.; Delhi High Court; order dated 12.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: FIR No. 235/2024 dated 30.03.2024 registered at P.S. Subhash Place, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed; petition disposed of. ¶14

Shri Arun Jain & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 235/2024 (P.S. Subhash Place, 30.03.2024) under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC on the ground of settlement between the parties, notwithstanding that the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The chargesheet's additional Section 354A IPC allegation did not stand in the way of quashing: respondent No. 2 stated it was born out of a misunderstanding and she does not wish to press it, and cognizance had not yet been taken.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh), the proceedings — arising out of a matrimonial relationship which has already culminated in a decree of divorce, with respondent No. 2 affirming the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court — are unlikely to result in conviction, and their continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.

¶12

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed: FIR No. 235/2024 dated 30.03.2024, registered at P.S. Subhash Place, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on matrimonial settlement — inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) exercised over non-compoundable offence. FIR No. 235/2024 (30.03.2024, P.S. Subhash Place, Delhi) under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC against seven accused (husband, father-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law) was quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings: petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 married 14.12.2022, separated since 16.08.2023, divorced by mutual consent 22.11.2025; Settlement Agreement 19.09.2025 (Counselling Cell, Family Courts, Rohini) for Rs. 11,00,000/- paid and receipt acknowledged; complainant disclaimed the chargesheet's Section 354A IPC allegation (Section 164 CrPC statement against petitioner No. 5) as a misunderstanding, cognizance not taken. Applying Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held conviction unlikely and continuation an empty formality. (Prateek Jalan, J., Delhi High Court, 12.01.2026)

¶1

$~111

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 221/2026

¶4

SHRI ARUN JAIN & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Navin Kumar Chaudhry, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with SI Ritu, PS Subhash Place. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Mr. Aniket Verma & Mr. Dhruv Bhatnagar, Advocates for R-2. [M:9811744539]

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 12.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 837/2026 ( for exemption )

¶9

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 221/2026

¶12

Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant.

¶13

By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the

¶14

CRL.M.C. 221/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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 15/01/2026 at 12:14:58

¶17

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 235/2024 dated 30.03.2024, registered at P.S. Subhash Place, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.

¶18

Petitioner no. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 14.12.2022, but have been living separately since 16.08.2023. The impugned FIR was registered on 30.03.2024, at the instance of respondent No. 2, against seven accused persons being her husband, father-in-law, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law [petitioners herein].

¶19

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 19.09.2025, under the aegis of the Counselling Cell, Principal Judge, Family Courts, North West, Rohini, Delhi.

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioners are present, and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by her counsel and the IO.

¶22

Although the chargesheet was also filed under Section 354A of the IPC, in view of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, raising certain allegations of inappropriate conduct against petitioner No.5 herein, respondent No. 2, who is present in person, states that the said allegations were born out of a misunderstanding, and that she does not wish to press those allegations. Cognizance has also not yet been taken.

¶23

Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a

¶24

CRL.M.C. 221/2026

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 15/01/2026 at 12:14:58

¶28

decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court on 22.11.2025. 9. The Settlement Agreement dated 19.09.2025, contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 states that she has received the said amount. The settlement has, therefore, been implemented.

¶29

Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

¶30

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶31

“ 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

¶32

CRL.M.C. 221/2026

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 15/01/2026 at 12:14:58

¶36

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 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. ”

¶37

[Emphasis supplied.]

¶38

Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], 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:

¶39

“ 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.

¶40

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 .

¶41

CRL.M.C. 221/2026

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 15/01/2026 at 12:14:58

¶45

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.

¶46

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 .

¶47

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 .”

¶48

[Emphasis supplied.]

¶49

In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the respondent No. 2 has also affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.

¶50

As noted above, a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/-, as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement, has been paid to respondent No. 2. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

¶51

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 235/2024 dated 30.03.2024, registered at P.S. Subhash Place, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC, alongwith all

CRL.M.C. 221/2026

Page 5 of 6

consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed.

¶56