Delhi High Court – Orders
Narender @ Narender Lal vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 27 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~103
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9365/2026
NARENDER @ NARENDER LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manjit Saini and Mr. Vikas
Jain, Advocates
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
for State with SI Yamini Vats, PS
Patel Nagar
Counsel (Appearance not given)
with R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 27.03.2026
1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC“]), the petitioner seeks
quashing of FIR No. 456/2025 dated 08.11.2025, registered under
Sections 64(2)/69/123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”] at
Police Station Patel Nagar, District Central, Delhi, on the ground of
settlement between the parties.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 1 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
4. The principal allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of
respondent No. 2, are that the petitioner induced her into a relationship on
the promise of marriage and subsequently administered an intoxicating
substance, rendering her unconscious, and committed sexual acts upon
her while recording obscene videos. It is further alleged that he later
refused to marry her, thereby causing severe mental distress to her.
5. Quashing of the FIR is now sought on the ground that the parties
have resolved their differences, leading to the marriage between the
petitioner and respondent No. 2 having taken place on 11.01.2026. A
marriage certificate, issued by Guru Dawara Sri Guru Singh Sabha,
Sheikh Sarai Phase-II, certifying the marriage on 11.01.2026, has been
placed on record and verified by the Investigating Officer [“IO”].
6. Respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit dated 11.03.2026
stating that she has no grievance against the petitioner and has accorded
her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. During the hearing
of the petitioner’s bail application (which was disposed of by order dated
06.12.2025), respondent No. 2 further stated before the Sessions Court
that she was willing to marry the petitioner and had no intention of
pursuing the criminal case.
7. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
8. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned
counsel, as well as by the IO. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person
and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO.
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 2 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states that respondent No. 2
has unequivocally affirmed that she has entered into the marriage with the
petitioner of her own free will, without any coercion, pressure, or undue
influence. As noted above, respondent No. 2 is personally present, and
confirms this position.
10. Mr. Chauhan, however, submits that respondent no. 2 had
reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR in her statement recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. [now corresponding to Section 183 of
the BNSS].
11. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers,
may quash criminal proceedings even in cases involving non-
compoundable offences where the parties have arrived at a settlement.
However, the Supreme Court has cautioned that such power must be
exercised with circumspection, particularly where the allegations concern
offences of a serious or heinous nature. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
& Anr.1, the Supreme Court elaborated upon the scope and limitations of
the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The relevant extracts are
reproduced below:
“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 paid1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 3 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
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.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
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
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 4 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
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.”2
Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the
Supreme Court formulated guiding principles for the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases involving compromise.
The Court underscored that while the power to quash is distinct from the
power of compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C., it must be exercised
sparingly, bearing in mind the nature and gravity of the offence. The
relevant portion reads as follows:
“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:
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466 [hereinafter, “Narinder Singh”].
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 5 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
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.”4
12. From the aforesaid decisions, it emerges that offences such as rape
are ordinarily regarded as offences against society and are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of settlement. At the same time, the Supreme
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 6 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
Court has recognised that the High Court is not entirely denuded of its
discretion and that each case must be evaluated on its own facts,
including the stage of proceedings and the likelihood of conviction.
13. In this context, reference may be made to the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 and Madhukar v.
State of Maharashtra6, wherein proceedings under Section 376 IPC were
quashed in the peculiar facts of those cases. The Supreme Court clarified
that although courts must be slow in quashing prosecutions involving
serious allegations, they are nevertheless empowered to assess whether
sufficient material exists to sustain the charge, and whether the possibility
of conviction is remote. The Court in Kapil Gupta, the Court noticed the
judgment in Narinder Singh, and observed as follows:
“12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the
Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and
serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such
an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved
would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The
Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement
between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which
may improve their mutual relationship.
13. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led
and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court
should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However,
if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement
of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.”
14. Although the Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta was not concerned
with a case in which the prosecutrix and the petitioner had married each
4
Emphasis supplied.
5
(2022) 15 SCC 44 [hereinafter, “Kapil Gupta”]
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 7 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
other, this Court has quashed proceedings in factual situations
substantially similar to the present case.
15. In Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana and Anr.7, the accused and
the prosecutrix were introduced through a matrimonial application. An
FIR was lodged when the accused allegedly failed to honour a
matrimonial promise after having engaged in a physical relationship. The
High Court was approached subsequently, after the parties had married,
but the petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court, exercising its powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the said FIR, being
satisfied that the prosecutrix had voluntarily married the accused and had
no intention of pursuing the complaint further.
16. A comparable factual matrix to the present case was considered by
a coordinate Bench of this Court in Amit Plathia v. State (NCT of Delhi)8,
where the FIR had likewise been registered under Section 376 IPC. In
that case, the prosecutrix alleged that physical relations were entered into
on the basis of a promise of marriage, and that the complaint was
instituted when the accused declined to proceed with the marriage. After
taking into account the principles laid down by the Supreme Court,
including Kapil Gupta and Jatin Agarwal, as well as several earlier orders
of this Court9, it was held as follows:
“9. What emerges from the discussion undertaken above is that while
as a matter of practice, serious and heinous offences ought not to be
quashed by exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., as it can6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415.
7
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1969 [hereinafter, “Jatin Agarwal”].
8
2024 SCC OnLine Del 9158 [hereinafter, “Amit Plathia”].
9
Amar Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine Del 8452], Prem Kumar v. State
[2024 SCC OnLine Del 628], Rihan v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine Del 4436],
Anshuman v. State [2023 SCC OnLine Del 2050], Yojan Sharma v. State [2023 SCC OnLine Del
5612], Mohit v. Govt. of NCT Delhi [2024 SCC OnLine Del 1222].
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 8 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
have detrimental impact upon society, however, at the same time, the
Court is not completely divested of the power to quash such
proceedings. In appropriate cases, upon a consideration of the facts
including the evidence available, the chances of conviction, the
timing of the settlement/marriage as well as it actual effect, the Court
can exercise its power under Section 482 to quash such proceedings,
in the interest of justice and to put a quietus to the entire incident.
However, at the sake of repetition, it is clarified that there is no
blanket rule that such quashing should or should not take place. While
quashing of serious and heinous offence like rape solely based upon
settlement/marriage may not always be warranted, it can be done in
cases where the peculiar facts warrant the same.
10. In the present case, the FIR was lodged when respondent No. 2 felt
that though she had consented for physical relations, the petitioner
may not keep his promise to marry her. Admittedly, during the
pendency of the proceedings under the said FIR, the petitioner and
respondent No. 2 have married each other on 04.10.2023 and the said
fact has been duly verified, as evidenced in the status report filed by
learned APP for the State.
The petition is also accompanied by no objection certificate of
respondent No. 2 wherein she has stated that consensual physical
relations were established between the petitioner and respondent No. 2
and later, marriage between them has been solemnised.
Petitioner, who is present in Court, has been identified by his
counsel and the I.O. Respondent No. 2, who is also present in Court
and identified by I.O., stated that she is leading a happy married life
with petitioner and joins in the prayer for quashing of the FIR.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the relations
between the parties were consensual and no evidence has been
placed on record which would show that the petitioner had
established relations with respondent No. 2 on a false promise to
marry. The case is still at the initial stage as the charge is yet to be
framed.
Considering the facts of the present case including the fact that the
High Court is well within its right to quash proceedings emanating
from Section 376 IPC, if the facts so warrant, the present petition is
allowed and FIR No. 657/2023 registered under Section 376 IPC at
P.S. Shakarpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed. Bail bond and surety bond, if any, are discharged. Pending
application is disposed of as infructuous.”10
17. Like in Amit Plathia, the FIR in the present case was clearly
10
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 9 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
predicated upon an allegation of false promise of marriage. In fact, the
petitioner and the prosecutrix were stated to have entered into a
relationship for the purposes of marriage, and the FIR was registered at a
time when the petitioner allegedly declined to marry the prosecutrix. This
narrative aligns closely with the facts in Jatin Agarwal and Amit Plathia.
There is no dispute that the parties have since married on 11.01.2026. The
marriage certificate has been placed on record as Annexure C and has
been duly verified by the IO. Respondent No. 2 has also expressed her
unwillingness to continue with the proceedings emanating from the
subject FIR.
18. As far as the stage of trial in the present case is concerned, I am
informed that the chargesheet has not yet been filed.
19. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the
precedents cited above, I am of the view that this is a fit case to exercise
discretionary powers conferred on this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS, to quash the criminal proceedings. Such an order would enure to
the benefit of both the parties, and enable them to establish a peaceful and
harmonious domestic life. Despite the seriousness of the offence, the facts
do not disclose such elements of public interest or heinous criminality, as
to necessitate the criminal proceedings to be carried to their logical
conclusion.
20. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed,
and FIR No. 456/2025 dated 08.11.2025, registered at Police Station Patel
Nagar, District Central, under Sections 69/64(2)/123 of the BNS, along
with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
Considering that the criminal justice machinery had been set in motion
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 10 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16
and that considerable time of both the police and the Court has been
expended, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are directed to jointly
deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar Association
Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553;
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within a period of two weeks from
today. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed within one week
thereafter.
21. The petition, alongwith the pending application, accordingly stands
disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 27, 2026
‘Sv/JM’/
CRL.M.C. 2295/2026 Page 11 of 11
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 31/03/2026 at 20:39:16