CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 $~20 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 CRL.M.A. 24031/2025 NAUSHAD ALIAS MOHAMMAD NAUSHAD & ORS. ......Petitioners Through: Mr. Irfan Ahmad, Advocate alongwith Petitioners in Person. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ......Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP SI Isha, PS Prem Nagar. R-2 in Person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 15.07.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 256/2024, dated 05.05.2024, for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”] registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Rohini, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating 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. Respondent No. 2 appears in person and declines the assistance of counsel. 3. The petitioners are present in Court, and have been duly identified by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and is identified by the IO. 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 17/07/2026 at 11:14:28 CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 4. Respondent No. 2’s sister was married to petitioner No. 2, and the parties are thus connected through a familial relationship. Additionally, the parties are neighbours residing in the same locality. The remaining petitioners are relatives of petitioner No. 2. 5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, and arises out of an incident dated 05.05.2024, wherein the respondent No. 2 was allegedly assaulted, while attempting to mediate the matrimonial dispute. 6. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed. 7. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties amicably settled their disputes by way of an oral settlement.. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, states that the allegations under Sections 354 of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding, and that she do not wish to pursue the same. She also states that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue pressure 8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, the Court held as follows: 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 17/07/2026 at 11:14:28 CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 “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.”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: 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. 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 17/07/2026 at 11:14:28 CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 “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 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 10. In the present case, the impugned FIRs arise out of a matrimonial dispute. The complainant has stated that the allegations under Sections 4 Emphasis supplied. 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 17/07/2026 at 11:14:28 CRL.M.C. 5602/2025 354 of the IPC arose on account of misunderstandings, and that they do not wish to pursue the same. There is no allegation of use of a firearm or sharp weapon. The marriage between petitioner No. 2 and the sister of respondent No. 2 has also since been dissolved. The allegations also do not implicate any larger public interest or involve grave criminality. The parties also continue to reside in the same locality and have agreed to bury the hatchet. 11. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has also affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings is unlikely to result in a conviction and would serve no useful purpose, while merely adding to the burden on the justice system and causing unnecessary consumption of public resources. 12. Having regard to the above discussion, the petitions are allowed, and FIR No. 256/2024, dated 05.05.2024, for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Rohini, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed, subject to payment of costs as aforesaid. 13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 14. The petition stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 15, 2026 ‘pv’/AD/ 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 17/07/2026 at 11:14:28