Delhi High Court – Orders
Naushad Alias Mohammad Naushad & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 15 July, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~20 Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 CRL.M.A. 24031/2025
NAUSHAD ALIAS MOHAMMAD
NAUSHAD & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Irfan Ahmad, Advocate
alongwith Petitioners in Person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP
SI Isha, PS Prem Nagar.
R-2 in Person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 15.07.2026
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 petitioners seek
quashing of FIR No. 256/2024, dated 05.05.2024, for offences punishable
under Sections 323/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC“]
registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Rohini, Delhi, alongwith
all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of a
settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2
appears in person and declines the assistance of counsel.
3. The petitioners are present in Court, and have been duly identified
by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer [“IO”].
Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and is identified by the IO.
CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 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 16/07/2026 at 21:46:43
4. Respondent No. 2’s sister was married to petitioner No. 2, and the
parties are thus connected through a familial relationship. Additionally,
the parties are neighbours residing in the same locality. The remaining
petitioners are relatives of petitioner No. 2.
5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.
2, and arises out of an incident dated 05.05.2024, wherein the respondent
No. 2 was allegedly assaulted, while attempting to mediate the
matrimonial dispute.
6. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed.
7. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties amicably settled
their disputes by way of an oral settlement.. Respondent No. 2, who is
present in Court, states that the allegations under Sections 354 of the IPC
arose out of a misunderstanding, and that she do not wish to pursue the
same. She also states that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily,
without any coercion or undue pressure
8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances,
the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the
CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the 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. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, the Court held as
follows:
CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 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 16/07/2026 at 21:46:43
“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-
2
fast category can be prescribed.”
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:
1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 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 16/07/2026 at 21:46:43
“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
4
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
10. In the present case, the impugned FIRs arise out of a matrimonial
dispute. The complainant has stated that the allegations under Sections
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 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 16/07/2026 at 21:46:43
354 of the IPC arose on account of misunderstandings, and that they do
not wish to pursue the same. There is no allegation of use of a firearm or
sharp weapon. The marriage between petitioner No. 2 and the sister of
respondent No. 2 has also since been dissolved. The allegations also do
not implicate any larger public interest or involve grave criminality. The
parties also continue to reside in the same locality and have agreed to
bury the hatchet.
11. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is
pertinent to note that the complainant has 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.
12. Having regard to the above discussion, the petitions are allowed,
and FIR No. 256/2024, dated 05.05.2024, for offences punishable under
Sections 323/354/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Prem Nagar,
District Rohini, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed, subject to payment of costs as
aforesaid.
13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
14. The petition stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 15, 2026
‘pv’/AD/
CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 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 16/07/2026 at 21:46:43
