Delhi High Court – Orders
Jagdish Kumar Doriwal And Anr vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 4 May, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~106-Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3386/2026 & CRL.M.A. 13675/2026
JAGDISH KUMAR DORIWAL AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ved Prakash Verma, Mr.
Praveen Aggarwal, Mr. Ayush
Goel, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP alongwith
Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate.
SI Rahul Lamba.
Mr Manish Kumar, Advocate for
R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 04.05.2026
1. The petitioners have filed 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“]) seeking
quashing of FIR No. 291/2017 dated 13.06.2017, registered at Police
Station Saket, District South, Delhi under Sections 323/509/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr Manish Kumar,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –
CRL.M.C. 3386/2026 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 07/05/2026 at 20:45:10
complainant.
3. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 were married on 09.05.2009.
One child was born from the wedlock on 31.07.2016. However, due to
matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties,
they have been living separately since 23.08.2020.
4. Subsequently, the impugned FIR came to be registered at the
instance of respondent No. 2 against two accused persons, namely her
husband and brother-in-law [petitioners herein]. The allegations, as they
emerge therefrom, are that on 18.05.2017, while respondent No. 2 was
waiting by the roadside with her father upon returning from a hearing at
Saket Court, the petitioners, who were travelling on a motorcycle,
subjected her to verbal abuse. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1
[brother-in-law] raised his hand while holding an object, as a result of
which she sustained scratches.
5. A chargesheet was subsequently filed under Sections
323/354B/509/34 of the IPC.
6. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes, as
recorded in a Settlement Agreement dated 25.04.2025 entered into
between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2.
7. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
8. The parties are present in Court, and have been duly identified by
their respective learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer.
9. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 2
and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by
mutual consent vide order dated 27.09.2025, passed by the Family Court,
CRL.M.C. 3386/2026 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 07/05/2026 at 20:45:10
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
10. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- by
petitioner No. 2 to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of
all disputes. I am informed that a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- has already been
paid to respondent No. 2 in terms thereof. At this stage, a further sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid today in pursuance of the settlement. The
balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of
FIR No. 1390/2015, registered at Police Station Neb Sarai, under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, which remains pending.
11. The settlement further records that custody of the minor child shall
remain with respondent No. 2, with visitation rights to petitioner No. 2.
12. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 confirm that the settlement
has been entered into voluntarily, without any force or coercion.
Respondent No. 2 has also filed her no-objection affidavit before this
Court, and submits that the allegations, including those against her
brother-in-law for the offence punishable under Section 354B of the IPC,
arose out of a misunderstanding stemming from matrimonial strife, and
that she does not wish to pursue the same.
13. Although the offence under Section 354B of the IPC is non-
compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain
circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section
482 of CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS], 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.
CRL.M.C. 3386/2026 Page 3 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 07/05/2026 at 20:45:10
14. 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 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.”2Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the
Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 3386/2026 Page 4 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 07/05/2026 at 20:45:10
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 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
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 3386/2026 Page 5 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 07/05/2026 at 20:45:10
15. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of
a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a divorce.
Respondent No. 2 has stated that the allegations under Section 354B of
the IPC were a result of the breakdown of the matrimonial relationship,
and that she does not wish to prosecute them further. Applying the tests
laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that 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.
16. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 291/2017 dated 13.06.2017, registered at Police Station Saket,
District South, Delhi under Sections 323/509/34 of the IPC, alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
17. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
18. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands
disposed of.
19. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order
will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody
remains with respondent No. 2.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 4, 2026
tg/KA/
CRL.M.C. 3386/2026 Page 6 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 07/05/2026 at 20:45:10
