Delhi High Court – Orders
Yash Ahuja & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 20 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2065/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8535/2026
YASH AHUJA & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Khushal Singh, Advocate.
[M:-7838790822]
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.
Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Mr. Raj
Kumar, Ms. Sandhya Bajaj, Ms.
Chanchal Sharma, Advocates for
R-2 alongwith R-2 in Person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 20.03.2026
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing
of FIR No. 143/2024 dated 30.05.2024, registered at Police Station
Chitranjan Park under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 [“IPC“], alongwith all proceedings arising 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 and Mr. Himanshu Bajaj,
learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
CRL.M.C. 2065/2026 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 24/03/2026 at 20:59:29
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been duly identified
by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.
Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been duly identified
by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.
4. The petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. The present FIR was registered on 30.05.2024 at the instance of
respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is her husband
and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of
respondent No. 2, respectively. Petitioner No. 4 is her sister-in-law, while
petitioner No. 5 is her brother-in-law.
6. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 15.01.2005,
in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Owing to matrimonial
discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been living
separately since 23.04.2024. Two children were born out of the wedlock
on 06.08.2008 and 29.07.2012, respectively.
7. A chargesheet was subsequently filed on 15.08.2024, pursuant to
which charges under Sections 354 and 377 of IPC were also added.
8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a
settlement, which was duly recorded in a Settlement Deed dated
29.08.2024. In terms of the said settlement, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay
a total sum of Rs.40,00,000 to respondent No. 2 as a one-time settlement
amount, out of which Rs.20,00,000 was to be paid at the time second
motion before the Family Court, and the remaining at the time of
quashing of the impugned FIR. The remaining amount of Rs.20,00,000
has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today.
CRL.M.C. 2065/2026 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 24/03/2026 at 20:59:29
9. It was further agreed that respondent No. 2 would transfer the
balance amount of Rs. 5,46,710 lying in a joint account held in her name
and that of her daughter in any of her personal account. The parties also
agreed that the stridhan articles would be handed over immediately upon
the execution of the agreement, while the gifts given by the grandparents
to the minor children would be returned at the time of signing of the
agreement.
10. As regards the custody of minor children, the custody,
maintenance, and overall responsibility of the two minor children is
agreed to vest exclusively with petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has
been granted visitation rights to meet the children once every fifteen days
at a public place, subject to the prior permission of petitioner No. 1.
11. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, the marriage between the
parties stood dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated
13.01.2026.
12. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
13. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that the High Courts, in
exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973), may, in appropriate cases, quash criminal
proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences on the basis
of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, particularly
where no overarching public interest is adversely affected.
CRL.M.C. 2065/2026 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 24/03/2026 at 20:59:29
14. 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.”2Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the
Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 2065/2026 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 24/03/2026 at 20:59:29
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
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
CRL.M.C. 2065/2026 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 24/03/2026 at 20:59:29
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
15. In the present case, the proceedings emanate from a matrimonial
relationship which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. It
appears that the allegations under various provisions arose in the wake of
the underlying matrimonial dispute between the parties. Applying the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is evident that respondent
No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed before this Court that the settlement has
been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion. In view of these
circumstances, the likelihood of conviction is remote, and the
continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful
purpose, while unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and
consuming valuable public resources.
16. The terms of settlement have also been implemented by grant of a
decree of divorce, and compliance with other reciprocal obligations of the
parties.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed,
and FIR No. 143/2024 dated 30.05.2024, registered at Police Station
Chitranjan Park under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is
hereby quashed.
18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
19. The two children born out of the wedlock are presently aged 13 and
17 years and are, therefore, minors. They are currently in the custody of
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2065/2026 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 24/03/2026 at 20:59:29
their father. It is clarified that the present Ì‘ order shall not, in any manner,
affect the rights of the minor children.
20. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 20, 2026
‘pv’/SD/
CRL.M.C. 2065/2026 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 24/03/2026 at 20:59:29
