Delhi High Court – Orders
Rahul And Ors vs State Gove Nct Of Delhi Through Ps Uttam … on 27 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~112-Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3190/2026 & CRL.M.A. 12932/2026
RAHUL AND ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Boora, Mr. Nikhil
Malik and Mr. Deepesh Paderiya,
Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH PS UTTAM
NAGAR AND ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP alongwith
Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate.
Mr. Sahil Sehrawat, Advocate for
R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 27.04.2026
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. 193/2025 dated 16.04.2025, registered at Police
Station Uttam Nagar, District Dwarka, 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. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Sahil Sehrawat,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –
CRL.M.C. 3190/2026 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 29/04/2026 at 20:54:58
complainant.
3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 12.09.2021.
Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, they have
been living separately since 09.11.2022. No child was born from the
wedlock.
4. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before
the Crime Against Women Cell, which culminated in the impugned FIR
against her husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law [petitioners
herein].
5. The parties have since settled their disputes, as recorded in a
Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.01.2026 [“MoU”], entered into
between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2.
6. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
7. The parties are present in Court, and have been duly identified by
the Investigating Officer, as well as their respective learned counsel.
8. The MoU records that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 shall be dissolved by mutual consent. Further, petitioner
No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full
and final settlement, and that all pending litigations between the parties
shall be withdrawn.
9. The MoU stipulates that, at the time of recording of statements in
the First Motion, petitioner No. 1 shall hand over a security cheque in the
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent No. 2. It is further agreed that the
said amount shall be paid by way of a demand draft at the time of the
Second Motion, upon return of the said security cheque.
CRL.M.C. 3190/2026 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 29/04/2026 at 20:54:58
10. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, the joint statements of
petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 were recorded before the Family
Court on 19.01.2026, and the First Motion for divorce by mutual consent
was allowed. I am informed that a security cheque in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in terms of the
settlement.
11. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
12. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-
compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain
circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section
528 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the 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. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1, the Supreme Court 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 has1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 3190/2026 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 29/04/2026 at 20:54:58
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:
“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, this2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 3190/2026 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 29/04/2026 at 20:54:58
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.”
14. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of
a matrimonial relationship, in respect of which the First Motion for
divorce by mutual consent has already been allowed. 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 public resources unnecessarily.
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 3190/2026 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 29/04/2026 at 20:54:58
15. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 193/2025 dated 16.04.2025, registered at Police Station Uttam
Nagar, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the 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 27, 2026
SS/KA/
CRL.M.C. 3190/2026 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 29/04/2026 at 20:54:58