Imran Ali vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 July, 2026

July 7, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Imran Ali vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 July, 2026

1. By way of the present petition filed 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 FIR No. 311/2025 dated 24.09.2025,
registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], at
Police Station Chandani Mahal, District Central, Delhi, on the ground
that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

SPONSORED

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 is
also present in person.

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

4. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned
counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also
present in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer.

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 1 of 11

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 06/07/2026 at 20:43:04

5. The principal allegations in the FIR, lodged at the instance of
respondent No. 2, are that she had known the accused, i.e., the petitioner
herein, for approximately five years, as he resided in the flat below her
along with his brother. It is alleged that although they had been
acquainted for several years, they entered into a physical relationship
around two years prior to registration of the FIR, on 04.06.2023, upon the
petitioner calling her to his room in the absence of his brothers and
promising to marry her. Acting upon such assurance, the complainant
alleges that she established physical relations with the petitioner, and
continued to maintain the same over the next two years on the repeated
promise of marriage. According to the complainant, whenever she raised
the issue of marriage or attempted to distance herself from him, the
petitioner would postpone the matter while reiterating his assurance. It is
further alleged that she later learnt from the petitioner’s younger brother
that the petitioner was about to marry another woman within two days.
The complainant further states that the petitioner last had physical
relations with her on 11.09.2025, after which he ceased all
communication and left without informing her.

6. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be
filed on 15.11.2025 before the learned Magistrate’s Court, wherein an
additional offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[“BNS”], was also invoked against the petitioner. I am further informed
that, vide order dated 28.04.2026, the learned Trial Court framed charges
against the petitioner, and the matter is presently pending at the stage of
prosecution evidence.

7. The present petition seeks quashing of the subject FIR on the

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 2 of 11

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 06/07/2026 at 20:43:04
ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and have
since solemnized their marriage on 28.10.2025 in accordance with
Muslim law. In support thereof, a Nikahnama evidencing the said
marriage has been placed on record, which has also been duly verified by
the Investigating Officer.

8. A copy of the Aadhaar card of respondent No. 2 has been handed
over in Court, wherein her date of birth is reflected as 01.01.2005, and the
same is taken on record. Respondent No. 2 has further filed an affidavit
dated 28.04.2026 stating that she harbours no grievance against the
petitioner, does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the
subject FIR, and has no objection to the quashing thereof. Respondent
No. 2, who is personally present before this Court, has unequivocally
reiterated the aforesaid position. She also states that the petitioner and she
are now expecting a child.

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

10. It is a settled position of law that this Court, in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction, is empowered to quash criminal proceedings, even
in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the parties have
amicably resolved their disputes. At the same time, the Supreme Court
has consistently cautioned that such power must be exercised with due
circumspection, particularly in cases involving allegations of a serious or
heinous nature. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1, the Supreme
Court authoritatively delineated the scope and limitations of the High
Court’s inherent powers in this regard. The relevant extracts thereof are

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 3 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

“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.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised
in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure

1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 4 of 11

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 06/07/2026 at 20:43:04
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or
FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled
the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any
basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong
is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash
the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the
High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”2

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the
Supreme Court laid down guiding principles governing the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC in cases where the parties

2
Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 5 of 11

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 06/07/2026 at 20:43:04
have entered into a compromise. The Court emphasized that the power to
quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the statutory power of
compounding under Section 320 of the CrPC and, therefore, must be
exercised sparingly and with due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. The relevant extract reads 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

3
(2014) 6 SCC 466 [hereinafter, “Narinder Singh”].

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 6 of 11

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 06/07/2026 at 20:43:04
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

11. A conspectus of the aforesaid decisions makes it evident that
offences such as rape are, by their very nature, regarded as offences
against society at large and, therefore, cannot ordinarily be quashed
merely on the basis of a settlement between the parties. At the same time,
the Supreme Court has clarified that the High Court is not wholly
divested of its inherent discretion in such matters, and that the exercise of
such jurisdiction must necessarily depend upon the peculiar facts and
circumstances of each case, including the stage of the proceedings and the
likelihood of conviction.

12. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 and Madhukar v.
State of Maharashtra6, wherein proceedings under Section 376 IPC came
to be quashed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. The
Supreme Court clarified that although courts must exercise restraint while
quashing prosecutions involving serious allegations, they are nevertheless
empowered to examine whether the material on record is sufficient to
sustain the charge and whether the possibility of conviction is remote. In

4
Emphasis supplied.

(2022) 15 SCC 44 [hereinafter, “Kapil Gupta”]
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415.

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 7 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

“12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the
Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and
serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such
an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved
would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The
Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement
between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which
may improve their mutual relationship.

13. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led
and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court
should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However,
if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement
of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.”

13. Though the decision of the Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta did not
arise from a case where the prosecutrix and the petitioner had
subsequently solemnized marriage, the Court has, in comparable factual
circumstances, exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal
proceedings.

14. In Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana and Anr.7, the accused and
the prosecutrix had come into contact through a matrimonial application,
following which they entered into a physical relationship on the accused’s
assurance of marriage. Upon the accused allegedly failing to honour the
said promise, an FIR came to be lodged against him. Although the High
Court declined to quash the proceedings even after the parties had
subsequently solemnized their marriage, the Supreme Court, in exercise
of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR after

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 8 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

15. A substantially similar factual matrix fell for consideration before a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Amit Plathia v. State (NCT of Delhi)8,
wherein the FIR had likewise been registered under Section 376 IPC. In
the said case, the prosecutrix alleged that physical relations had been
established on the basis of a promise of marriage and that the complaint
came to be instituted when the accused declined to solemnize the same.
While considering the matter, the co-ordinate Bench took note of the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court, as well as earlier decisions of
this Court, including Kapil Gupta and Jatin Agarwal, as well as several
earlier orders of this Court9, and observed as follows:

“9. What emerges from the discussion undertaken above is that while
as a matter of practice, serious and heinous offences ought not to be
quashed by exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., as it can
have detrimental impact upon society, however, at the same time, the
Court is not completely divested of the power to quash such
proceedings. In appropriate cases, upon a consideration of the facts
including the evidence available, the chances of conviction, the
timing of the settlement/marriage as well as it actual effect, the Court
can exercise its power under Section 482 to quash such proceedings,
in the interest of justice and to put a quietus to the entire incident.
However, at the sake of repetition, it is clarified that there is no
blanket rule that such quashing should or should not take place. While
quashing of serious and heinous offence like rape solely based upon
settlement/marriage may not always be warranted, it can be done in
cases where the peculiar facts warrant the same.

10. In the present case, the FIR was lodged when respondent No. 2 felt
that though she had consented for physical relations, the petitioner
may not keep his promise to marry her. Admittedly, during the

7
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1969 [hereinafter, “Jatin Agarwal”].

2024 SCC OnLine Del 9158 [hereinafter, “Amit Plathia”].

Amar Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine Del 8452], Prem Kumar v. State
[2024 SCC OnLine Del 628], Rihan v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine Del 4436],
Anshuman v. State [2023 SCC OnLine Del 2050], Yojan Sharma v. State [2023 SCC OnLine Del
5612], and Mohit v. Govt. of NCT Delhi [2024 SCC OnLine Del 1222].

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 9 of 11

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 06/07/2026 at 20:43:04
pendency of the proceedings under the said FIR, the petitioner and
respondent No. 2 have married each other on 04.10.2023 and the said
fact has been duly verified, as evidenced in the status report filed by
learned APP for the State.

The petition is also accompanied by no objection certificate of
respondent No. 2 wherein she has stated that consensual physical
relations were established between the petitioner and respondent No. 2
and later, marriage between them has been solemnised.
Petitioner, who is present in Court, has been identified by his
counsel and the I.O. Respondent No. 2, who is also present in Court
and identified by I.O., stated that she is leading a happy married life
with petitioner and joins in the prayer for quashing of the FIR.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the relations
between the parties were consensual and no evidence has been
placed on record which would show that the petitioner had
established relations with respondent No. 2 on a false promise to
marry. The case is still at the initial stage as the charge is yet to be
framed.

Considering the facts of the present case including the fact that the
High Court is well within its right to quash proceedings emanating
from Section 376 IPC, if the facts so warrant, the present petition is
allowed and FIR No. 657/2023 registered under Section 376 IPC at
P.S. Shakarpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed. Bail bond and surety bond, if any, are discharged. Pending
application is disposed of as infructuous.”10

16. Similar to the factual position in Amit Plathia, the allegations in the
present FIR are founded on the assertion that the petitioner induced the
prosecutrix into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage.
The material on record indicates that the relationship between the parties
was consensual, the consent being premised upon their intended
marriage, and the FIR came to be lodged when the petitioner allegedly
resiled from the said assurance. It is also undisputed that the parties have
since solemnized their marriage on 28.10.2025. In support thereof, the
Nikahnama has been placed on record as Annexure P-2, and has been
duly verified by the Investigating Officer. The factual narrative, thus,

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 10 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

17. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as
the precedents referred to hereinabove, I am of the considered view that
the present case warrants the exercise of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Such an exercise of discretion would serve the ends of justice by enabling
the parties, who have since solemnized their marriage, to lead a peaceful
and harmonious matrimonial life. It would also advance the welfare of the
child they are expecting. Though the allegations pertain to a serious
offence, the peculiar facts of the present case do not disclose such
elements of overriding public interest, as would warrant permitting the
prosecution to continue to its logical conclusion.

18. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed.
Consequently, FIR No. 311/2025 dated 24.09.2025, registered under
Section 376 of the IPC at Police Station Chandani Mahal, District
Central, Delhi, alongwith all proceedings consequential thereto, stands
quashed.

19. The petition, alongwith the pending applications, accordingly
stands disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 2, 2026/Tg/SD/

10
Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 4509/2026 Page 11 of 11

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 06/07/2026 at 20:43:04

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Imran Ali vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders