Allowed¶57

Krishan & Anr. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2026CRL.M.C./2679/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC, CRL.M.C. 2679/2026, Prateek Jalan, J, 09.04.2026: quashing of FIR No. 697/2013 (P.S. Aman Vihar) under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on settlement; inherent power Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC over non-compoundable offence; reliance on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; matrimonial dispute, divorce decree 16.05.2017, settlement 12.01.2018, Rs. 1,50,000/- paid; parties bound by settlement; minor child's rights unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 697/2013 dated 29.12.2013 registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Outer District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; parties bound by settlement terms; order expressly not to affect the rights of the minor child in respondent No. 2's custody. ¶57

Krishan & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 697/2013 dated 29.12.2013 (P.S. Aman Vihar) under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed on the ground of settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh): the dispute arises out of a matrimonial relationship already ended by divorce, both parties have remarried, and respondent No. 2 affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement; accordingly the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction and their continuation would be an empty formality, burdening the justice system and consuming public resources.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), the High Court can quash criminal proceedings even with respect to non-compoundable offences on the ground of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

¶14

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and FIR No. 697/2013 dated 29.12.2013, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Outer District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed.ratio¶57
The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.ratio¶58
The settlement and the present order will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody remains with respondent No. 2.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J), by order dated 09.04.2026 in CRL.M.C. 2679/2026, allowed the petition filed under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) and quashed FIR No. 697/2013 dated 29.12.2013 registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings, on the ground of settlement. The matrimonial dispute (marriage on 26.02.2012; separation since 18.03.2013; charges framed on 15.12.2017 under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC) had been amicably resolved by settlement dated 12.01.2018 before the Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, whereby petitioner No. 1 paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in two tranches, acknowledged on oath before the Family Court in MT Case No. 443/2017, leading to withdrawal of maintenance proceedings; the marriage stood dissolved by decree dated 16.05.2017 and both parties had remarried. Although the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the Court, relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, held that where parties to a predominantly matrimonial dispute have voluntarily settled, the complainant affirms receipt and voluntariness, conviction is unlikely and continuation would be an empty formality, the FIR and consequential proceedings may be quashed in exercise of inherent power, no overarching public interest being affected. The parties were directed to remain bound by the settlement terms, and it was clarified that the order would not affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody remains with respondent No. 2.

¶1

$~93

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2679/2026 and Crl.M.A. No. 10855/2026

¶4

KRISHAN & ANR. .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advocates for the petitioners, with petitioners in person

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with SI Komal PS Aman Vihar R-2 in person.

¶8

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

¶9

% 09.04.2026

¶10

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 697/2013, dated 29.12.2013, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

¶11

Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State. Respondent No. 2 appears in person and states that she does not seek the assistance of counsel. 3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of

¶13

CRL.M.C. 2679/2026 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 15/04/2026 at 11:35:53

¶16

respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1.

¶17

The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 26.02.2012, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 18.03.2013. One male child was born from the wedlock on 26.12.2012, whose custody remains with respondent No. 2.

¶18

Respondent No.2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, alleging that she was subjected to intolerable physical and mental harassment by petitioner No. 1 and his family members on demands of dowry, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR.

¶19

Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 17.10.2016. On 15.12.2017, the Trial Court framed charges against the present petitioners under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC, while discharging the father-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 due to absence of specific allegations.

¶20

During the pendency of proceedings, respondent No. 2 instituted a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Family Court. By judgment dated 16.05.2017, the Family Court dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce.

¶21

Subsequently, the parties amicably resolved all their disputes before the Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, by settlement dated 12.01.2018, wherein petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement, which

¶22

CRL.M.C. 2679/2026 Page 2 of 6

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 15/04/2026 at 11:35:53

¶25

amount was duly paid in two tranches on 09.03.2018 and 17.04.2018, and acknowledged by respondent No. 2 on oath before the Family Court in MT. Case No. 443/2017, leading to withdrawal of maintenance proceedings.

¶26

I am informed by learned counsel for the parties that both the parties have remarried & are settled in their respective lives. 11. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings. 12. The petitioners are present in person and are identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by the IO.

¶27

Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent No. 2 appears in Court and confirms that she has received the entire settlement amount.

¶28

Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is noncompoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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.

¶29

The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ has held as follows:

¶30

“ 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard

¶31

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶32

CRL.M.C. 2679/2026 Page 3 of 6

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 15/04/2026 at 11:35:53

¶35

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 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-and-fast category can be prescribed. ”²

¶36

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:

¶37

“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

¶38

2 Emphasis supplied.

¶39

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶40

CRL.M.C. 2679/2026 Page 4 of 6

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

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 15/04/2026 at 11:35:53

¶43

and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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 .

¶50

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

¶51

In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of

¶52

4 Emphasis supplied.

¶53

CRL.M.C. 2679/2026 Page 5 of 6

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

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 15/04/2026 at 11:35:53

¶56

divorce. Learned counsel for the parties affirm before the Court that both the parties have remarried & are settled in their respective lives. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the respondent No. 2 has also categorically 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.

¶57

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 697/2013, dated 29.12.2013, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Outer District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶58

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

¶59

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶60

It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody remains with respondent No. 2.

¶61

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶62

APRIL 9, 2026 “SV/JM”/

¶63

CRL.M.C. 2679/2026 Page 6 of 6

¶64

This is a digitally signed order.

¶65

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 15/04/2026 at 11:35:53

Krishan & Anr. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan & Anr. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & 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 Bisht @ Ajay Singh & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mohd Shami & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Deepanshu Dagar Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Naman Yadav and Ors. Vs State (Govt.Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Abhishek Sharma Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Yash Kumar and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.