Delhi High Court – Orders
Rakesh Jain & Anr vs State (Nct Of Delhi ) & Anr on 6 July, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~20 to 22 Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 8535/2025
RAKESH JAIN & ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Murria and Mr. Rohit
Shandilya, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.
ASI Satish Kumar.
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate for
R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 8576/2025
AJAY AGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Murria and Mr. Rohit
Shandilya, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.
ASI Satish Kumar.
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate for
R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 8895/2025, CRL.M.A. 37103/2025 & CRL.M.A.
37104/2025
VIKAS JAIN & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP
ASI Anil Kumar.
Mr. Pradeep Murria and Mr. Rohit
Shandilya, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 06.07.2026
1. These petitions have been filed 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. 178/2019 dated 19.03.2019, for offences punishable under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“] [subject
matter of CRL.M.C. 8535/2025]; FIR No. 377/2018 dated 16.07.2018, for
offences punishable under Sections 323/354 of the IPC [subject matter of
CRL.M.C. 8576/2025]; and FIR No. 408/2018 dated 30.07.2018, for
offences punishable under Sections 323/341/354/506/34 of the IPC
[subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8895/2025], all registered at Police Station
Dabri, Dwarka, Delhi, alongwith all consequential 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. Manish Gupta,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 in
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and CRL.M.C. 8576/2025, while Mr. Pradeep
Murria, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2
and 3 in CRL.M.C. 8895/2025.
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 2 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
3. The parties are present before the Court and have been duly
identified by their respective learned counsel as well as by the
Investigating Officer.
4. The petitions are taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8535/2025
were married on 09.05.1998. Two children were born out of the wedlock
on 08.09.1999 and 22.12.2001, both of whom have now attained the age
of majority. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental
differences, the parties have been living separately since 16.07.2018.
6. The present petitions arise out of a matrimonial dispute and relate
to three interconnected FIRs involving the same family members in
different capacities. FIR No. 178/2019 [subject matter of CRL.M.C.
8535/2025] was lodged by respondent No. 2 against petitioner No. 1,
while petitioner No. 2 is his mother. The same respondent No. 2 is also
the complainant in FIR No. 377/2018 [subject matter of CRL.M.C.
8576/2025], wherein the petitioner is her brother-in-law. FIR No.
408/2018 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8895/2025] was, in turn, lodged
by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 against the two
brothers of respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8535/2025, her cousin and her
maternal uncle. Thus, while respondent No. 2 is the complainant in FIR
Nos. 178/2019 and 377/2018, the complainant in FIR No. 408/2018 is
one of the accused in FIR No. 178/2019, demonstrating that all three FIRs
arise from the same family dispute and involve overlapping parties.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably
resolved all their disputes under the aegis of the Counselling Cell, Family
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 3 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
Courts, Delhi, by way of a settlement dated 03.08.2024, encompassing all
three aforesaid FIRs. In terms of the settlement, the parties agreed to
dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [“HMA”]. It was further agreed that petitioner
No. 1 in CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 would pay a total sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-
to respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 towards full and final
settlement of all claims arising out of the marriage, including stridhan,
dowry articles, maintenance (past, present and future) and permanent
alimony, in three equal instalments of Rs. 4,00,000/- each, payable at the
stages of the first motion of HMA, second motion of HMA and quashing
of the aforesaid FIRs. In addition, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses, and the parties undertook to
cooperate with each other in the quashing of FIR No. 178/2019, FIR No.
377/2018 and FIR No. 408/2018 before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
9. The respective complainants/respondent No.2 in CRL.M.C.
8576/2025 and CRL.M.C. 8895/2025 submit that the allegations under
Section 354 IPC in FIR No. 377/2018 and FIR No. 408/2018,
respectively, arose out of misunderstandings in the wake of the
matrimonial dispute between the parties. They state that the disputes have
since been amicably resolved, that they no longer wish to pursue the
allegations contained in the aforesaid FIRs, and that they have no
surviving grievance against the respective petitioners. The said statements
have been made voluntarily and are affirmed by the respective
respondents, and their counsel, present before the Court.
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 4 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
10. In furtherance of the settlement, the marriage between petitioner
No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 has been dissolved
by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, vide order dated 20.05.2025
passed by the learned Family Court.
11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
12. Although the offences in question are non-compoundable, it is well
settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC),
may quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the
parties, even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the facts
and circumstances so warrant and no overriding 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 the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 5 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
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
2
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, 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 guiding2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 6 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
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 facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is
satisfied that the dispute is essentially private in nature, having arisen out
of matrimonial discord and the consequent misunderstandings between
the parties and their respective family members. The settlement has been
voluntarily arrived at, has been substantially acted upon, and has
culminated in the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce by
mutual consent. The respective complainants/respondent No.2 in
CRL.M.C. 8576/2025 and CRL.M.C. 8895/2025 have unequivocally
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 7 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
affirmed before this Court that the allegations under Section 354 IPC in
the respective FIRs arose out of misunderstandings in the backdrop of the
matrimonial dispute, that they no longer wish to pursue the proceedings,
and that they harbour no surviving grievance against the respective
petitioners.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of securing a conviction is
remote and bleak. Consequently, permitting the criminal proceedings to
continue would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court, while unnecessarily consuming valuable judicial
time and resources without advancing any overriding public interest.
16. In terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 1 in CRL.M.C. 8535/2025
agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 therein,
towards full and final settlement of all her claims, alongwith the litigation
expenses. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- has already
been paid and acknowledged by respondent No. 2. The balance amount of
Rs. 4,00,000/- has been handed over to her in Court today, which she
acknowledges having received. Accordingly, the settlement stands fully
satisfied, and no impediment survives to the grant of the relief sought in
the present petitions.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petitions are
allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 178/2019 dated 19.03.2019, registered for
offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC [subject
matter of CRL.M.C. 8535/2025]; FIR No. 377/2018 dated 16.07.2018,
registered for offences punishable under Sections 323/354 of the IPC
[subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8576/2025]; and FIR No. 408/2018 dated
30.07.2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 8 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
323/341/354/506/34 of the IPC [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8895/2025],
all registered at Police Station Dabri, Dwarka, Delhi, alongwith all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
19. The petitions, alongwith any pending applications, accordingly
stand disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 6, 2026
SS/SD/
CRL.M.C. 8535/2025 and connected matters Page 9 of 9
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 07/07/2026 at 21:00:12
