Delhi High Court – Orders
Manoj Kumar @ Nizam & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 6 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~139
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4606/2026
MANOJ KUMAR @ NIZAM & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arjun Singh and Mr. Ankit
Besoya, Advocates along with P-1 to
P-5 in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
ASI Latoor Singh, PS Jaitpur.
Mr. Rizwan Ali, Advocate for R-2
along with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 06.07.2026
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
“a) Quash the FIR bearing FIR No.0503/2020, dated 24.10.2020
U/s 498A/406/34 of IPC & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Registered at
P.S. Jaitpur against the petitioners as the matter has been settied
between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent No. 2, in the interest of
justice; and
b) Pass such other or further order(s) or direction as this Hon’ble Court
may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. It is prayed accordingly.”
2. The petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and respondent no.2 are present in Court
and they have been identified by the substituted Investigating Officer of the
case as well as by their counsel. Petitioner nos.6 and 7 are stated to be kept
in Column no.12 of the charge sheet.
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 07/07/2026 at 21:07:26
3. The respondent No.2 in reply to the specific Court queries has
affirmed the factum of a settlement arrived at between her and the
petitioners before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on
12.01.2026 and that the Nikah between her and the petitioner no.1 has since
been dissolved by way of mutual consent (mubarat). However, the copy of
the same has not been placed on record. She further stated that as per the
said settlement a total sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was to be paid to her by the
petitioners, out of which she has received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- previously
and the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been handed over to her vide a
demand draft bearing no.235432 dated 26.05.2026 drawn on the Indina
Overseas Bank in her name i.e. Naseem Bano. She further stated that there
are no claims of hers left against the petitioners and thus she does not
oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in
question nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto. She
further stated that she has made her statement voluntarily of her own accord
without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
4. On behalf of the State there is no opposition in quashing of the FIR in
question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the
respondent no.2 and the statement made by respondent no.2.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of
Punjab & Anr.1 vide 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 with1
(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 07/07/2026 at 21:07:26
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.
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
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 07/07/2026 at 21:07:26
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
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.”
and in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another2, the Supreme
Court vide 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 is2
(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 07/07/2026 at 21:07:26
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 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.”
6. Taking into account the settlement between the petitioners and the
respondent no.2 and the statement made by respondent no.2 and in view of
there being no opposition on behalf of the State and the factum that the FIR
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 07/07/2026 at 21:07:26
in question has apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord which has
since been resolved with the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner
no.1 and the respondent no.2, for the maintenance of peace and harmony
between them and for the well being of the respondent no.2 it is considered
appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the FIR No. 0503/2020, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Jaitpur and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed.
8. The petition stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 6, 2026/ NC
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 07/07/2026 at 21:07:26
