Naveen Kumar and Anr. Vs the State and Anr.

¶1

$~99 (Q)

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 4913/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20627/2026 NAVEEN KUMAR AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. Appearance not given for R-2, alongwith R2 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

O R D E R % 16.07.2026

¶8

The petitioners have approached this Court 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. 65/2021, dated 03.02.2021, registered at Police Station Dwarka (North), Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 506/509/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.

¶9

Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

¶10

The petitioners are present in Court and identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is present

¶11

CRL.M.C. 4913/2026

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:21

¶15

through video conference and has been duly identified by her counsel and by the IO.

¶16

Respondent No. 2 and the petitioners are members of the same family. Petitioner No. 1 is the brother-in-law of respondent No. 2, and petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 [wife of petitioner No. 1].

¶17

The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, wherein she alleges that, on 03.02.2021, petitioner No. 1 called her husband, and asked him to vacate the house in which they were residing. When she and her husband approached her parents-in-law, the petitioners abused and assaulted her and her husband.

¶18

Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed.

¶19

During the pendency of the case, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 14.03.2026. The settlement records that several family disputes had arisen among the family members regarding various properties. The settlement therefore contemplates a resolution of these disputes by providing a division of those properties.

¶20

An affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been placed on record, wherein it is affirmed that the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding and that respondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Although husband of respondent No. 2 is also a victim in the impugned FIR, he has not been made a party to the present petition. However, husband of respondent No. 2 is part of the settlement agreement, and is also present in Court, and submits that he has no objection to granting the relief sought.

¶21

CRL.M.C. 4913/2026

¶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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:21

¶24

Learned counsel for the parties submit before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without force, fraud or coercion, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

¶25

In light of the aforesaid, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. 11. 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. 12. 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,

¶27

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶28

CRL.M.C. 4913/2026

¶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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:21

¶32

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

¶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

2 Emphasis supplied.

¶38

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶39

CRL.M.C. 4913/2026

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:21

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

In the present case, the parties belong to the same family. The proceedings arise out of disputes relating to division of their properties. They have since amicably resolved their differences. Respondent No. 2 and her husband have stated that the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding and that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The injuries sustained are also simple in nature. No overriding public interest would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings, which emanate from a private dispute between neighbours, to continue, particularly when the matter stands fully settled. In the light of these facts, it is evident that the continuation of criminal proceedings is

¶48

CRL.M.C. 4913/2026

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:21

¶52

unlikely to result in any conviction, and would serve no practical purpose, amounting merely to a formal exercise that would unnecessarily burden the administration of justice and expend public resources.

¶53

As recorded above, the settlement contemplates a division of properties amongst the family members. I am informed that the parties are in process of implementing the settlement. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

¶54

Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 65/2021, dated 03.02.2021, registered at Police Station Dwarka (North), Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 506/509/323/34 of the IPC, alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶55

The petition, alongwith pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

¶56

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

¶57

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶58

JULY 16, 2026 “B”/AD/

4 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 4913/2026

Page 6 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

¶63

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 20/07/2026 at 11:18:21

Naveen Kumar and Anr. v. the State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar and Anr. v. the State and 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

Raj Kumar Prajapati Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Upender Kumar & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Amar Tomar & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Tanvir Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi, & Anr.

Arpit Gupta & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jatin Pal & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.