Delhi High Court – Orders
Ravi Kumar vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 1 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~83 & 99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2404/2026, CRL.M.A. 9795/2026
RAVI KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI
Nivedita and SI Shikha.
Mr. Siddhant Saini, Advocate for
R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2409/2026, CRL.M.A. 9834/2026
PUNEET MADAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI
Nivedita and SI Shikha.
Mr. Siddhant Saini, Advocate for
R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 01.04.2026
1. The present 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 two cross-FIRs, being FIR No. 438/2024 dated 07.08.2024,
registered under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
CRL.M.C. 2404/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2409/2026 Page 1 of 7
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 20:42:46
Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”] and FIR No. 436/2024 dated 07.08.2024,
registered under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/74 of BNS, both registered at
Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi. FIR No. 438/2024 forms the subject
matter of CRL.M.C. 2404/2026, whereas FIR No. 436/2024 forms the
subject matter of CRL.M.C. 2409/2026. The petitions are premised on a
settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State in both petitions. Mr.
Siddhant Saini, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No. 2 in both petitions.
3. All parties are present in Court and have been duly identified by
the Investigating Officer as well as by their respective learned counsel.
The parties have confirmed before this Court that they have amicably
resolved their disputes and do not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings against each other.
4. The petitions are taken up for hearing together with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties.
5. The parties in the present matters are known to each other, being
related through a landlord-tenant arrangement and having resided in close
proximity. The disputes appear to have arisen out of continuing
interpersonal discord between the two families. FIR No. 438/2024 has
been lodged by the tenant against the husband of the landlord, whereas
FIR No. 436/2024 has been lodged by the landlord against her tenant, i.e.
the husband of the complainant in FIR No. 438/2024.
6. In FIR No. 438/2024 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 2404/2026], the
allegations arise from an incident when the complainant/tenant had
CRL.M.C. 2404/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2409/2026 Page 2 of 7
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 20:42:46
approached her landlord in connection with a prior altercation, during
which the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant in FIR No.
436/2024, is alleged to have acted inappropriately and restrained her. It is
also the case of the complainant that she was in an advanced stage of
pregnancy at the relevant time.
7. In FIR No. 436/2024 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 2409/2026], the
allegations stem from a separate dispute between the complainant-
landlord and her tenant, who is the husband of the complainant in FIR
No. 438/2024, arising out of a disagreement relating to the placement of a
cot in a common passage, in the course of which the petitioner is alleged
to have engaged in a verbal and physical altercation with the complainant.
8. The parties seek quashing of the aforesaid FIRs on the ground that
they have now decided to bury the hatchet, and in furtherance thereof, the
parties have entered into a settlement by way of Settlement Deeds dated
02.09.2025 and 27.03.2026, in CRL.M.C. 2404/2026 and CRL.M.C.
2409/2026, respectively, without any monetary consideration. Affidavits
of the respective complainants have also been placed on record, affirming
the voluntary nature of the settlement and recording their no objection to
the quashing of the impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
9. I am further informed that the parties are no longer residing in the
same locality, thereby reducing the likelihood of any future disputes.
10. 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
CRL.M.C. 2404/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2409/2026 Page 3 of 7
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 20:42:46
there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant,
especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.
11. 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 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.”21
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
2
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2404/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2409/2026 Page 4 of 7
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 20:42:46
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 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
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 2404/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2409/2026 Page 5 of 7
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 20:42:46
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. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I
am of the view that the present petitions warrant exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction for quashing of the cross-FIRs. The disputes in question arise
out of a neighbourhood/landlord-tenant discord between parties who were
residing in close proximity, and do not, prima facie, disclose any element
of heinous or serious criminality. It has further been brought to the notice
of this Court that the parties are no longer residing in the same locality,
thereby considerably reducing the likelihood of any recurrence of
disputes.
13. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties,
the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. Continuation
of the criminal proceedings, in such circumstances, would serve no useful
purpose and would amount to an unnecessary burden on judicial
resources. On the other hand, quashing of the FIRs would subserve the
ends of justice by enabling the parties to put a quietus to their impending
disputes.
14. The petitions are, therefore, allowed, and all proceedings
emanating from FIR No. 438/2024 dated 07.08.2024 under Sections
115(2)/126(2)/75 of the BNS and FIR No. 436/2024 dated 07.08.2024
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2404/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2409/2026 Page 6 of 7
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 20:42:46
under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/74 registered at P.S. Keshav Puram, are
hereby quashed, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the
petitioners in each case with the Delhi High Court Bar Association [A/C
No. 15530110179338, IFSC No. UCBA0001553, Bank Name: UCO
Bank, Branch: Delhi High Court], within two weeks from today. An
affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.
15. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
16. The petitions, alongwith the pending applications, accordingly
stand disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 1, 2026
SS/SD/
CRL.M.C. 2404/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2409/2026 Page 7 of 7
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 20:42:46
[ad_1]
Source link
