Delhi High Court – Orders
Mr. Naseem Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2434/2026, CRL.M.A. 9935/2026
MR. NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Vaibhav Sharma, Mr. Nikhil
Vashishth, and Mr. Sagar Mitra,
Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State
with SI Kajal Rani, PS Seemapuri
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for
R2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 02.04.2026
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. 385/2023, dated 24.05.2023, registered at
Police Station Seemapuri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 [“DP Act“], 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 the State. Mr. Rajesh Kumar,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
CRL.M.C. 2434/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:06
3. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 are present by video conference, while
rest of the petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their
learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”].
Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by her
learned counsel and the IO.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2,
who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of
petitioner No.1. Petitioner No. 3 is the sister of petitioner No. 1.
Petitioner No. 4 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No. 1, and petitioner
Nos. 5 and 6 are the brothers of petitioner No. 1.
6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on
25.07.2016. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences
between the parties, they have been living separately since 10.06.2022.
No child was born from the wedlock.
7. Respondent No.2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime
against Women Cell, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR,
against six accused persons, being her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-
law, and three brothers-in-law.
8. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties have entered into a
settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 09.11.2025.
9. The settlement contemplates that the parties have reconciled their
disputes and resumed cohabitation as husband and wife. Respondent No.
2, who is personally present before this Court, states that she has fully
reconciled with petitioner No. 1 and that no disputes or grievances now
CRL.M.C. 2434/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:06
subsist between them.
10. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement was
arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure
from any side.
11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
12. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of
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 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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 & Anr.1 has
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 the1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 2434/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:06
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.”2
Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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 basis
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 2434/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:06
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.”4
14. In the present case, the dispute stems from a matrimonial
relationship that has since been amicably resolved. Petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 have reconciled and are living together for the last four
months, and in such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would be prejudicial to their marital harmony. Applying the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court, respondent No. 2 has
unequivocally stated before this Court that the settlement was entered into
voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. In these
CRL.M.C. 2434/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:06
circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to
lead to a conviction and would merely serve as a procedural formality,
thereby imposing an unnecessary burden on the justice system and
diverting valuable judicial resources without serving any meaningful
purpose.
15. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 385/2023, dated 24.05.2023, registered at Police Station
Seemapuri, under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC, alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
16. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
17. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 2, 2026
‘SV’/AD/
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2434/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 21:12:06
