Quashed

Salman & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Sept 2026CRL.M.C./6899/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a criminal FIR and all consequential proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute after the complainant confirmed a voluntary settlement, had received the agreed payment and articles, and no longer wished to proceed. Applying Supreme Court precedents, it found that conviction was unlikely and continued prosecution would be an empty formality. The parties were bound by the settlement, while the complainant retained custody of the minor children.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 598/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. The parties were bound by the settlement, without affecting the minor children's rights or the complainant's custody.

Salman & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2026)

Outcome

Issue for consideration

Whether criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS where the parties have voluntarily settled all their disputes and the complainant no longer wishes to prosecute. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A High Court may, in suitable circumstances, exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences arising from a matrimonial dispute where the accused and complainant have genuinely settled all disputes, continuation of proceedings would be futile, and quashing would secure the ends of justice without adversely affecting broader public interests. Serious or heinous offences of mental depravity and offences having a significant impact on society are not ordinarily quashed merely because of a compromise, while proceedings having a civil or matrimonial character may be quashed where the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The relevant considerations include the voluntary nature of the settlement, whether the complainant has unequivocally abandoned prosecution, whether conviction is remote, and whether continuation would cause oppression or injustice. Here, the matrimonial relationship had ended in divorce, related maintenance and domestic-violence proceedings had been withdrawn, and the complainant personally confirmed the voluntary settlement before the court. The settlement amount and articles had been received in full, leaving no impediment to relief. The criminal proceedings were therefore unlikely to result in conviction, and their continuation would be an empty formality that unnecessarily burdened the justice system. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed, with the parties bound by the settlement. The order did not affect the minor children’s rights, whose custody remained with the complainant.

¶1

$~98 Q

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010442972026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

¶5

SALMAN & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Ms. Mumtaz Ahmad, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Satish Sharma & Ms. Neha, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate. SI Devender, PS Sangam Vihar. Mr. Sajid Ali, Advocate alongwith R2 in Person.

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 17.09.2026

¶12

CRL.M.A. 28923/2026 ( for exemption )

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

¶16

By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 598/2022, dated 08.09.2022, registered at Police

¶17

CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:09

¶21

Station Sangam Vihar, District South, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/3 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

¶22

Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Sajid Ali, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

¶23

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

¶24

The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters of petitioner No. 1, and petitioner No. 6 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No. 1.

¶25

The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 24.12.2017, according to Muslim rites and customs. Two female children were born out of the said wedlock. The first female child was born on 20.11.2019. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since 29.10.2021, and petitioner No. 1 sent a legal notice dated 30.10.2021, pronouncing first talaq .

¶26

Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against the petitioners.

¶27

It is stated that a chargesheet has been filed in the proceedings.

¶28

CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

¶29

Page 2 of 7

¶30

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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:09

¶31

During the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have entered into a settlement dated 15.10.2024, under the aegis of Counselling Cell, Family Courts, Saket, South District, New Delhi. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement towards all her claims, in three instalments, and return of certain articles to respondent No. 2 on 27.10.2024.

¶32

Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 10. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, and represented by counsel, states that she does not have any subsisting grievances against the petitioners, and does not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings. Her affidavit dated 16.10.2025 is also placed on record, wherein it is stated that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 11. I am informed that, pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved in accordance with their personal laws. It is also stated that respondent No. 2, after receiving the entire settlement amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-, has withdrawn her maintenance and domestic violence petitions, which were pending against the concerned petitioners.

¶33

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

¶34

The Supreme Court has held that, in suitable circumstances, High Courts may, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, where a compromise has been

¶35

CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:09

¶39

reached between the accused and the complainant, provided that such quashing does not adversely affect any broader public interest. 14. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ has held as follows:

¶40

“ 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 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

¶41

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶42

2 Emphasis supplied.

¶43

CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

¶44

Page 4 of 7

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:09

¶47

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:

¶48

“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:

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

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

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

Page 5 of 7

family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves .

¶59

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

¶60

In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated into a decree of divorce. Pursuant to the settlement, respondent No. 2 has also withdrawn the maintenance and domestic violence petitions. 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.

¶61

As noted above, the settlement contemplates payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- and return of articles to respondent No. 2. I am informed that respondent No. 2 has received the full settlement amount and the said articles as well. There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

¶62

In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 598/2022, dated 08.09.2022, registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, District South, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

4 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

Page 6 of 7

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

¶68

The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶69

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

¶70

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶71

SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 ‘pv’/MK/

¶72

CRL.M.C. 6899/2026

¶73

Page 7 of 7

¶74