SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH SACHDEVA AND ANR VS. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
CRL.M.C. 9250/2025



##PAGE1##

$~24

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 9250/2025, CRL.M.A. 38623/2025

MANDEEP SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Kartik Khanna, Advocate.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for

State with ASI Om Prakash, PS-

Nanak Pura.

Mr. Arjun Kakkar, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, “BNSS” (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, “Cr.P.C.”) seeks quashing of FIR No. 84/2024, registered under

Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Crime

(Women) Cell Nanak Pura and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are the in-

laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and

Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 22nd November, 2009, as per Sikh

rites and ceremonies. Parties have one child from this marriage. Due to

matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship

CRL.M.C. 9250/2025 Page 1 of 6

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 19/01/2026 at 21:50:11

##PAGE2##

between the parties deteriorated, leading to separation. Several efforts for

reconciliation were made but to no avail.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the

Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later

culminated into the impugned FIR.

4. The parties of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or

undue influence, have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences.

They have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 19th March, 2025,

whereby Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR 6,00,00,000/- to

Respondent No. 2, who, in turn, agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending

before various Courts. It was also agreed that the custody of the minor child

shall rest with Respondent No. 2, with visitation rights to Petitioner No. 1. In

furtherance of this settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have

obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent by order dated 12th

December, 2025 passed by the Family Court, South-East District, Saket

Court, Delhi.

5. Respondent No. 2, who appears in person and is duly identified by the

Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and gives her no objection to

the quashing of the impugned FIR. She confirms that in terms of the

Settlement Agreement, she has already received a sum of INR 4,60,00,000/-

from the Petitioners. Additionally, in accordance with the Agreement, the

Petitioners have tendered the balance amount of INR 1,40,00,000/- by way

of a demand draft to Respondent No. 2 during the proceedings. The same

has been duly received and acknowledged by Respondent no. 2. In light of

the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the

3 “IPC”

CRL.M.C. 9250/2025 Page 2 of 6

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 19/01/2026 at 21:50:11

##PAGE3##

impugned FIR.

6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence

under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under

Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

7. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers

under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can

compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is

a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh

& Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,, (2014) 6 SCC 466 the Supreme Court laid down guidelines

for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and

quashing the proceedings. The relevant obs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top