Delhi High Court – Orders
Akbar Khan & Ors vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 27 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~31-Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7153/2025 CRL.M.A. 30044/2025
AKBAR KHAN & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aabid Ujer and Mr. Raj
Kumar, Advocates alongwith
Petitioners in Person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP alongwith
Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate.
ASI Mohd. Javed, PS Zafrabad.
Ms. Saira Bano, Advocate for R2
alongwith R2 in Person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 27.04.2026
1. The present petition has been filed 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. 292/2023 dated 20.06.2023, registered at Police
Station Jafrabad, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections
323/354/354B/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“]. The
petition is founded on a compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Saira Bano, learned
counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CRL.M.C. 7153/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 29/04/2026 at 20:56:08
3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent
No.2 against the family members of her husband [respondent No. 3
herein], who are stated to reside in the same household. It appears that the
dispute arose from an altercation concerning a water pump. Upon
completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed.
5. The parties seek quashing of the FIR on the ground that they have
now decided to bury the hatchet. To this end, they have entered into
settlement dated 30.06.2025.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
7. The parties are present in Court and have been duly identified by
the Investigating Officer, as well as by their respective learned counsel.
8. The settlement does not entail any monetary consideration, and
records that respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court and represented
by counsel, states that the allegations under Sections 354 and 354B of the
IPC arose out of a misunderstanding, and that she does not wish to pursue
the same. An affidavit, affirming her no-objection to the quashing of the
impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, has
also been placed on record.
9. Although the offences under Sections 354 and 354B of the IPC are
non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain
circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section
528 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC], can quash
CRL.M.C. 7153/2025 Page 2 of 5
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 29/04/2026 at 20:56:08
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.
10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303],
the Supreme Court 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.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
CRL.M.C. 7153/2025 Page 3 of 5
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 29/04/2026 at 20:56:08
Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6
SCC 466], 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 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
CRL.M.C. 7153/2025 Page 4 of 5
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 29/04/2026 at 20:56:08
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
11. In the present case, the impugned FIR arose out of domestic quarrel
amongst family members. Respondent No. 2 has stated that the
allegations under Sections 354/354B of the IPC arose on account of
misunderstandings, and that she does not wish to pursue the same. The
allegations, therefore, do not implicate any larger public interest or
involve grave criminality. The parties have also agreed to bury the
hatchet.
12. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is
pertinent to note that respondent No. 2 also affirmed the voluntary nature
of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the
continuation of criminal proceedings is unlikely to result in a conviction
and would serve no useful purpose, while merely adding to the burden on
the justice system and causing unnecessary consumption of public
resources.
13. The petition is, therefore, allowed, and all proceedings emanating
from FIR No. 292/2023 dated 20.06.2023, registered at Police Station
Jafrabad, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections
323/354/354B/509/34 of the IPC, are hereby quashed.
14. The petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 27, 2026
‘pv/KA’/
CRL.M.C. 7153/2025 Page 5 of 5
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 29/04/2026 at 20:56:08