Delhi High Court – Orders
Mohd Danish & Ors vs State Of Gnct Delhi & Anr on 16 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~38-Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3685/2025, CRL.M.As. 16184-16186/2025
MOHD DANISH & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ansar Ahmad, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF GNCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.
SI Mohit Malik, P.S. Vijay Vihar.
Mr. Meer Hassan, Advocate
alongwith respondent No. 2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 16.04.2026
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. 191/2023 dated 05.05.2023, registered at Police
Station Vijay Vihar, District Rohini, New Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State. Mr. Meer Hassan, learned
counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant.
3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
CRL.M.C. 3685/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 21:35:01
counsel for the parties.
4. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 28.05.2016.
One child was born from the wedlock on 04.11.2017. However, due to
matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties,
they have been living separately since 08.07.2022.
5. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before
the Crime against Women Cell, and the same culminated into the
impugned FIR, against seven accused persons, being her husband,
parents-in-law, brothers-in-law, and sister-in-law.
6. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed
under Sections 354B/498A/406/506/509/34 of the IPC, and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [“the DP Act“]. The brother-in-law of
respondent No. 2 was chargesheeted under Section 354B of the IPC.
7. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since entered into a
settlement, as recorded in a Settlement/Compromise Deed dated
20.01.2025. 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. Petitioner No. 1 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.
CRL.M.C. 3685/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 21:35:01
10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1
and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent, as recorded
in a Deed of Talaq by way of Mubarat dated 12.02.2025.
11. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- by
petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2. I am informed that the said amount
has been paid in terms of the settlement. The settlement further records
that custody of the minor child shall remain with respondent No. 2.
12. Although the offences under Sections 354B/498A of the IPC, and
Section 4 of the DP Act are 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.
13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1,
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. In1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 3685/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 21:35:01
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-
2
fast category can be prescribed.”
Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.3, 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 basis2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 3685/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 21:35:01
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
4
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
14. 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
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 3685/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 21:35:01
public resources unnecessarily.
15. As noted above, the settlement amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- has been
received by respondent No. 2. There is, therefore, no impediment to the
grant of the relief sought.
16. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 191/2023 dated 05.05.2023, registered at Police Station Vijay
Vihar, District Rohini, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 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 applications, 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
APRIL 16, 2026
‘pv/KA’/
CRL.M.C. 3685/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 21:35:01