Delhi High Court – Orders
Rizwan @ Mohd. Rizwan & Ors vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 8 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~25&26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7972/2025, CRL.M.A. 33344/2025
RIZWAN @ MOHD. RIZWAN & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondent
Through:
+ CRL.M.C. 7974/2025, CRL.M.A. 33347/2025
MOHD. IFRAN .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through:
Appearances:
Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. Md. Irfan, Advocates for petitioners.
Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. Appearance not given for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 08.04.2026
1. The petitioners have filed these cross petitions 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. 211/2022, dated 09.03.2022,
registered at Police Station Jafrabad, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“] and Sections 3 and 4 of
CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 & Connected Matter Page 1 of 8
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 13/04/2026 at 20:49:09
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [subject matter of CRL.M.C.
7972/2025], as well as FIR No. 431/2023, dated 23.08.2023, registered at
Police Station Jafrabad, Delhi, under Sections 354, 354A, and 509 of the
IPC [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 7974/2025], together with all
proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the parties have
amicably settled their disputes.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.2 in both petitions.
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by
their respective learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer.
Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been similarly
identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.
4. The petitions are taken up for hearing together, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties.
5. The FIR in CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 was registered on 09.03.2022 at
the instance of respondent No.2, who was, at the relevant time, the wife
of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner
No.1, and petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 are his siblings.
6. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were married on 29.02.2015,
in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. Two children were born
out of the wedlock, on 05.08.2016 and 24.03.2018, respectively. Owing
to matrimonial discord and differences in temperament, the parties have
been living separately since July 2022.
7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint with the Crime
Against Women Cell, which led to the registration of FIR No. 211/2022
CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 & Connected Matter Page 2 of 8
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 13/04/2026 at 20:49:09
against four accused persons, namely the petitioners in CRL.M.C.
7972/2025.
8. Thereafter, on 23.08.2023, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint
against her brother-in-law, who is arrayed as a petitioner in CRL.M.C.
7974/2025 and as petitioner No.5 in CRL.M.C. 7972/2025, resulting in
the registration of FIR No. 431/2023 under Sections 354, 354A, and 509
of the IPC.
9. It is further stated that chargesheets have been filed in both matters.
10. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably
resolved all disputes arising out of their matrimonial and related matters,
as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.05.2025.
Pursuant to the settlement, the parties have agreed upon a total sum of Rs.
25,00,000/-, which encompasses expenses relating to gold and silver
ornaments, mehr, iddat period expenses, permanent alimony for
respondent No.2, and maintenance (past, present, and future) for the
minor children.
11. The settlement amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been agreed to be
paid in five equal installments of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. The first two
installments, amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- each, are to be paid in the
names of the minor children at the time of withdrawal of the maintenance
petition and the domestic violence petition, respectively. The third
installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- is to be paid at the time of withdrawal of the
civil suit. The fourth installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- is to be paid upon
quashing of FIR No. 211/2022 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 7972/2025],
and the fifth installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- is to be paid upon quashing of
FIR No. 431/2023 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 7974/2025]. It is further
CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 & Connected Matter Page 3 of 8
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 13/04/2026 at 20:49:09
agreed that the minor children shall remain in the custody of respondent
No.2, and petitioner No.1 shall have no visitation rights.
12. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by mutual consent through a
divorce deed/mubarat nama executed on 08.09.2025.
13. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the allegations framed
under Section 354 of the IPC in CRL.M.C. 7974/2025 arose from a
misunderstanding and were incidental to minor familial disputes, devoid
of any serious or lasting consequences.
14. The parties have affirmed before this Court that they have amicably
resolved their disputes and no longer wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings against one another.
15. In light of the foregoing, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIRs.
16. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that, in appropriate
circumstances, High Courts may, in the exercise of their inherent powers
under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the
CrPC), quash criminal proceedings, including those relating to non-
compoundable offences, where a compromise has been reached between
the accused and the complainant, provided that no overriding public
interest would be adversely affected.
17. 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 been1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 & Connected Matter Page 4 of 8
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 13/04/2026 at 20:49:09
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.”2
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 exercising2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 & Connected Matter Page 5 of 8
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 13/04/2026 at 20:49:09
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 him by not
quashing the criminal cases.”4
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 & Connected Matter Page 6 of 8
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 13/04/2026 at 20:49:09
18. Applying the principles discussed above to the present matters, this
Court is of the view that the cases at hand constitute a fit occasion for the
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIRs. The disputes arise
from matrimonial discord, and it is evident that the parties have
terminated their marital relationship and seek to move forward with their
respective lives. The allegations under Sections 354, 354A, and 509 of
the IPC are stated to have arisen from a misunderstanding in the course of
the matrimonial disputes, and there is no indication of any element of
heinous or grave criminality. In such circumstances, quashing the FIRs
would serve the ends of justice by allowing the parties to live in peace
and harmony, rather than prolonging discord. In view of the amicable
settlement reached between the parties, the likelihood of conviction is
also remote. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would, therefore,
serve no useful purpose and would impose an unnecessary burden on
judicial resources.
19. The settlement between the parties contemplates payment of a total
sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to respondent No.2, of which Rs. 15,00,000/- have
already been received by her, and the remaining Rs. 10,00,000/- has been
handed over to her in Court. Consequently, the entire settlement amount
has been fully received by respondent No.2. There is, therefore, no
impediment to granting the relief sought.
20. In view of the foregoing, the petitions are allowed. Accordingly,
FIR No. 211/2022 dated 09.03.2022, registered at Police Station Jafrabad,
Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [subject matter of CRL.M.C.
7972/2025], as well as FIR No. 431/2023 dated 23.08.2023, registered at
CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 & Connected Matter Page 7 of 8
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 13/04/2026 at 20:49:09
Police Station Jafrabad, Delhi, under Sections 354, 354A, and 509 of the
IPC [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 7974/2025], alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
21. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
22. The petitions, alongwith the pending applications, accordingly
stand disposed of.
23. It is, however, clarified that the settlement arrived at between the
parties, as well as the present order, shall not in any manner prejudice or
affect the rights and interests of the minor children, whose custody shall
continue to remain with respondent No. 2.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 8, 2026
‘Bhupi’/SD/
CRL.M.C. 7972/2025 & Connected Matter Page 8 of 8
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 13/04/2026 at 20:49:09
