Allowed¶31

Deepak Bedi v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2026CRL.M.C./69/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deepak Bedi v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.; CRL.M.C. 69/2026; Delhi High Court; Prateek Jalan; 06.01.2026; quashing of FIR No. 703/2015 dated 26.05.2015 P.S. Rajouri Garden; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 CrPC; settlement MoU 04.04.2025; divorce decree HMA No. 1823/2025 dated 06.08.2025; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Rs. 9,00,000 settlement; DD No. 087069; minor child rights unaffected; matrimonial dispute quashing.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of F.I.R. No. 0703/2015 dated 26.05.2015 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; parties to remain bound by the terms of the settlement; express preservation of the rights of the minor child born of the wedlock.

Deepak Bedi Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 703/2015 dated 26.05.2015, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, should be quashed in view of the settlement (MoU dated 04.04.2025) and the decree of dissolution of marriage dated 06.08.2025. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Court considered the Supreme Court's settled position on quashing criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement, relying on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 [para 58] and the guidelines in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 [para 29.4] relating to FIRs arising out of matrimonial and family relationships, and applied that authority to the present settled matrimonial dispute.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the criminal proceedings arose out of disputes which are essentially of private nature (settled matrimonial discord), there was no impediment to quashing; continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only act as an impediment to the parties living in peace.

¶30

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed; F.I.R. No. 0703/2015 dated 26.05.2015 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed.ratio¶31
The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.ratio¶32
It is made clear that the quashing order does not affect any rights of the minor child born of the wedlock (date of birth 08.01.2008), who remains in the custody of his mother.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.M.C. 69/2026 (High Court of Delhi, Prateek Jalan, J.) — Order dated 06.01.2026: Petition under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) by Deepak Bedi seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 703/2015 dated 26.05.2015, P.S. Rajouri Garden (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC), ALLOWED and FIR quashed with all consequential proceedings. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 (married 11.02.2007, separated since 10.02.2008) had settled all disputes by MoU dated 04.04.2025 and obtained decree of dissolution of marriage dated 06.08.2025 (HMA No. 1823/2025, Family Court, Tis Hazari); settlement sum Rs. 9,00,000/-, of which Rs. 6,50,000/- already paid and balance Rs. 2,50,000/- tendered in Court by DD No. 087069 dated 13.11.2025 (Bank of Baroda); settlement confirmed voluntary. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 [para 58] and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 [para 29.4], Court held that as the disputes were essentially of private nature, quashing met the ends of justice; parties bound by settlement terms; order expressly does not affect rights of the minor child (b. 08.01.2008) in mother's custody. Co-accused status: petitioner's parents deceased (08.02.2019, 09.03.2024); accused Nos. 4–7 discharged by Trial Court order dated 12.05.2022; petitioner sole surviving accused.

¶1

$~46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 69/2026 DEEPAK BEDI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Upender Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Madan, Advocates alongwith petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State alongwith SI Indrajeet, P.S.Rajouri Garden Mr. Shubham, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 06.01.2026

¶10

Issue notice. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Shubham, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, accept notice.

¶11

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

¶12

By way of 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”]), the petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 703/2015 dated 26.05.2015, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

¶13

CRL.M.C. 69/2026 Page 1 of 4

¶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 09/01/2026 at 11:20:49

¶16

[“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶17

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 11.02.2007. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 10.02.2008. One male child has been born from the wedlock.

¶18

The present FIR was registered on 26.05.2015 at the instance of respondent No. 2. In the said FIR, the parents of the petitioner were named as accused Nos. 2 and 3, and his sisters and brother-in-law were named as accused Nos. 4 to 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parents of the petitioner passed away on 08.02.2019 and 09.03.2024, respectively. Copies of their death certificates have been annexed to the present petition as Annexures G and H, respectively. As far as accused No. 4 to 7 are concerned, they were discharged by an order of the Trial Court dated 12.05.2022. The petitioner is therefore the only surviving accused.

¶19

In the present petition, it is stated that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated 04.04.2025, by which the disputes have been settled. The MoU contemplates dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. By a decree dated 06.08.2025 in HMA No. 1823/2025, the Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, has granted the decree of dissolution of marriage.

¶20

By way of the settlement, the parties also agreed that a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- would be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- has already been paid to the respondent No.2. The balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was agreed to be

¶21

CRL.M.C. 69/2026 Page 2 of 4

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 09/01/2026 at 11:20:49

¶24

paid at the time of quashing of the present FIR.

¶25

Today, the parties are present before the Court and have been identified by their respective counsel, and respondent No. 2 is also identified by the Investigating Officer. 9. A Demand Draft for the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (DD No. 087069 dated 13.11.2025 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Sector - 15, Rohini, Delhi) is handed over to the respondent No.2 in the Court. A copy, thereof, is taken on record. 10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Thus, they seek quashing of the criminal proceedings. 11. The power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of a settlement has been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. While emphasising that the exercise of the power under Section 482 of the CrPC in a particular case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and no hard and fast categorisation is possible, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , (2012) 10 SCC 303 [paragraph 58] observed that in case of offences arising out of matrimonial and family disputes, the wrong is basically to the victim and the quashing of criminal proceedings in such a case may be appropriate even if the offences have not been made compoundable. Similarly, the guidelines laid down in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , (2014) 6 SCC 466 [paragraph 29.4] contemplate that FIRs arising out of such relationships can be quashed if it would meet the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

¶26

In view of the fact that the criminal proceedings in the present case

¶27

CRL.M.C. 69/2026 Page 3 of 4

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 09/01/2026 at 11:20:49

¶30

arise out of disputes which are essentially of private nature, there is no impediment to quashing of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances. Continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord, would serve no useful purpose and would only act as an impediment to the parties living in peace.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. F.I.R. No. 0703/2015, dated 26.05.2015, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶32

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

¶33

The date of birth of the child born from the wedlock is 08.01.2008 and therefore, he is still a minor. He remains in the custody of his mother. It is made clear that this order does not affect any rights of the minor child.

¶34

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶35

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶36

JANUARY 6, 2026 Dy/JM/

¶37

CRL.M.C. 69/2026 Page 4 of 4

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 09/01/2026 at 11:20:49

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 703/2015 dated 26.05.2015, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, sought to be quashed alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom.¶12
Police Station Rajouri Garden · 26.05.2015
Prior proceeding
Notice issued; accepted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2; petition taken up for disposal with consent of counsel.¶10
Prior proceeding
Petitioner and respondent No. 2 married on 11.02.2007; living separately since 10.02.2008 due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences; one male child born of the wedlock.¶17
Prior proceeding
FIR No. 703/2015 registered on 26.05.2015 at the instance of respondent No. 2.¶18
Prior proceeding
In the FIR, petitioner's parents were accused Nos. 2 and 3; his sisters and brother-in-law were accused Nos. 4 to 7.¶18
Prior proceeding
During pendency, petitioner's parents passed away on 08.02.2019 and 09.03.2024; death certificates annexed as Annexures G and H.¶18
Prior proceeding
Accused Nos. 4 to 7 discharged by Trial Court order dated 12.05.2022; petitioner the only surviving accused.¶18
Prior proceeding
Petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.04.2025 settling the disputes; MoU contemplated dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.¶19
Prior proceeding
Decree of dissolution of marriage granted on 06.08.2025 in HMA No. 1823/2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.¶19
Prior proceeding
Settlement provided for payment of Rs.9,00,000/- by petitioner to respondent No.2; Rs.6,50,000/- already paid; balance Rs. 2,50,000/- payable at time of quashing.¶20
Prior proceeding
On the day of the order, parties present and identified in court; respondent No. 2 identified by the Investigating Officer.¶25
Prior proceeding
Balance Rs. 2,50,000/- paid by Demand Draft No. 087069 dated 13.11.2025 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Sector - 15, Rohini, Delhi, handed over to respondent No.2 in Court; copy taken on record.¶25
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the parties confirmed the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without coercion or undue pressure; parties sought quashing of the criminal proceedings.¶25

Deepak Bedi v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Bedi v. State of NCT 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

Shahnawaz Saifi @ Shanu Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mehul Bhardwaj Vs State NCT of Delhi

Shabnam Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Rekha Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Manju Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Manish Suri Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.