Delhi High Court – Orders
Yogesh Kumar Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 14 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3489/2026, CRL.M.A. 14147/2026 & CRL.M.A.
14148/2026
YOGESH KUMAR ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Puru Arora & Mr. Shivam Kalia,
Advs. with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 14.07.2026
1. The petitioners by way of the petition, seek quashment of the FIR
No.845/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at P.S. Ranhola, Delhi.
2. The parties are present in Court. They are identified by the
Investigating Officer and the counsel for the petitioners.
3. The facts of the case would indicate that the marriage of petitioner
no.1 was solemnized with respondent no.2 on 15.11.2021. Due to
matrimonial disputes between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, multiple
proceedings, including the present FIR, were initiated against the petitioners
and the mother of petitioner no. 1 (Late Gomati, who passed away on
02.05.2024). The matter has been amicably settled through settlement deed
dated 24.04.2026, wherein it was mutually agreed that the husband would
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 15/07/2026 at 22:47:39
pay a total settlement amount of ₹11,00,000 along with the articles listed in
Annexure-A of the settlement towards full and final settlement of all claims,
of which ₹7,00,000 and the listed articles have already been paid, while the
balance ₹4,00,000 is payable at the time of quashing FIR. The Demand
Draft bearing No. 418373 dated 05.05.2026 drawn on Central Bank of India
for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been handed over to the complainant in the
open court. The entire payment has been paid. Respondent No. 2 confirms
the same.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &
Anr. 1, in paragraph no. 61 has held as under:
“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 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 offences1
(2012) 10 SCC 303This 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 15/07/2026 at 22:47:39
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.”
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Punjab & Anr.2, in paragraph no. 29 has held 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 two2
(2014) 6 SCC 466This 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 15/07/2026 at 22:47:39
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.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as
crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However,
the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead
to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would
be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the
victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong
possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash
the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court
can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is
going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future
relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of
the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases
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 15/07/2026 at 22:47:39
where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High
Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the
investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally
the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482
of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to
decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to
whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly,
in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court
and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same
resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by
the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is
no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Prabatbhai Aahir v. State of
Gujarat3 in paragraph 16 has held as under:
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may
be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Count to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision
does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which
inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first
information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has
been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the sanie as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While
compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
3
(2017) 9 SCC 641
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 15/07/2026 at 22:47:39
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should
be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent
power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude
it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ti) to prevent an abuse
of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be
quashed on the ground thatthe offender and victim have settled the dispute,
revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive
elaboration of principles can be formulated,
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heingus and serious offences involving mental
depravity oroffences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.
Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact
upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on
the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons tor serious offences
16.7. As distinguished from serious ollences, there may be criminal cases which
haye an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial
mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour
may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the
dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view
of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression
and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and
16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being
of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to
quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the
financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”
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 15/07/2026 at 22:47:39
7. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances and nature of the
allegations and offence involved in the instant case and in view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh and in Narinder
Singh, the FIR No.845/2023 for the offences punishable under Section
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Ranhola, Delhi
and all consequential proceedings/ action thereto stand quashed.
8. The petition stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 14, 2026/p/ksr
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 15/07/2026 at 22:47:39
