Delhi High Court – Orders
Ajeet Singh & Ors vs State Of Govt. Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 16 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~92 and 96- Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2850/2026, CRL.M.A. 11595/2026
AJEET SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Devansh Malhotra, Advocate
with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF GOVT. NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with
Inspector Satbir Singh, PS Jaitpur
Mr.Saksham Saxena, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2 in person.
+ CRL.M.C. 2869/2026, CRL.M.A. 11670/2026, CRL.M.A.
11671/2026
DESHRAJ SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Devansh Malhotra, Advocate
with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF GOVT. NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with
Inspector Satbir Singh, PS Jaitpur
Mr.Saksham Saxena, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 16.04.2026
1. By way of the present petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
CRL.M.C. 2850/2026 & 2869/2026 Page 1 of 7
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 20/04/2026 at 21:34:43
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the respective petitioners seek quashing
of: (i) FIR No. 0452/2021 dated 26.09.2021, under Sections
354B/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC“] (in
CRL.M.C. 2869/2026), and (ii) FIR No. 0311/2022 dated 30.05.2022,
under Sections 406/498A/34 of the IPC (in CRL.M.C. 2850/2026), both
registered at Police Station Jaitpur, District South East, Delhi, on the
ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Saksham Saxena,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 in both
petitions.
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by
their respective learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer
[“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been similarly
identified by her learned counsel and the IO.
4. The petitions are taken up for hearing together, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties.
5. The marriage between Ajeet Singh [petitioner No. 1 in CRL.M.C.
2850/2026] & respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 29.11.2020 at Delhi,
in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from
the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord and differences in
temperament, the parties have been living separately since April 2021.
6. In CRL.M.C. 2869/2026, respondent No. 2 made a formal
complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell (South-East), New
Delhi, against the parents and brother of her husband, alleging
misbehaviour, physical assault, and sexual advances upon her, pursuant to
CRL.M.C. 2850/2026 & 2869/2026 Page 2 of 7
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 20/04/2026 at 21:34:43
which FIR No. 0452/2021 came to be registered on 26.09.2021.
7. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 also lodged another complaint,
alleging cruelty and dowry harassment against her husband and his family
members, which culminated in FIR No. 0311/2022, which was registered
on 30.05.2022 [subject matter of in CRL.M.C. 2850/2026].
8. I am informed by learned counsel for the parties that no
chargesheet has been filed to date in either of the aforesaid cases.
9. During the pendency of investigation, the parties arrived at an
amicable settlement before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New
Delhi on 22.08.2024, whereby all disputes were resolved. As per the
settlement, Ajeet Singh agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- to
respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims
including maintenance, alimony, stridhan, and other dues.
10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between the parties was
dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Court of the
Principal Judge, Family Courts, Saket.
11. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the allegations framed
under Sections 354B/509 of the IPC in CRL.M.C. 2869/2026 arose from
a misunderstanding and were incidental to minor familial disputes, devoid
of any serious or lasting consequences.
14. The parties have affirmed before this Court that they have amicably
resolved their disputes and no longer wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings against one another.
15. In light of the foregoing, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIRs.
12. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that, in appropriate
CRL.M.C. 2850/2026 & 2869/2026 Page 3 of 7
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 20/04/2026 at 21:34:43
circumstances, High Courts may, in the exercise of their inherent powers
under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the
CrPC), quash criminal proceedings, including those relating to non-
compoundable offences, where a compromise has been reached between
the accused and the complainant, provided that no overriding public
interest would be adversely affected.
13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has
held as follows:
“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 criminal1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 2850/2026 & 2869/2026 Page 4 of 7
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 20/04/2026 at 21:34:43
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
2
prescribed.”
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:
“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:
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.
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.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.
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
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 2850/2026 & 2869/2026 Page 5 of 7
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 20/04/2026 at 21:34:43
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
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.
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
14. Applying the principles discussed above to the present matters, this
Court is of the view that the cases at hand constitute a fit occasion for the
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIRs. The disputes arise
from matrimonial discord, and it is evident that the parties have
terminated their marital relationship and seek to move forward with their
respective lives. The allegations under Sections 354B and 509 of the IPC
are stated to have arisen from a misunderstanding in the course of the
matrimonial disputes, and there is no indication of any element of heinous
or grave criminality. In such circumstances, quashing the FIRs would
serve the ends of justice by allowing the parties to live in peace and
harmony, rather than prolonging discord. In view of the amicable
settlement reached between the parties, the likelihood of conviction is
also remote. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would, therefore,
serve no useful purpose and would impose an unnecessary burden on
judicial resources.
15. The settlement between the parties contemplates payment of a total
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2850/2026 & 2869/2026 Page 6 of 7
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 20/04/2026 at 21:34:43
sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- to respondent No.2, of which Rs. 10,00,000/- have
already been received by her, and the remaining Rs. 4,00,000/- has been
handed over to her in Court. Consequently, the entire settlement amount
has been fully received by respondent No.2. There is, therefore, no
impediment to granting the relief sought.
16. In view of the foregoing, the petitions are allowed. Accordingly,
FIR No. 0452/2021 dated 26.09.2021, under Sections
354B/323/506/509/34 of the IPC and FIR No. 0311/2022 dated
30.05.2022, under Sections 406/498A/34 of the IPC, both registered at
Police Station Jaitpur, District South East, Delhi, alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
18. The petitions, alongwith the pending applications, accordingly
stand disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 16, 2026
SV/JM/
CRL.M.C. 2850/2026 & 2869/2026 Page 7 of 7
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 20/04/2026 at 21:34:43