CRL.M.C. 4740/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~112 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4740/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19875/2026 NAZIR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harshit Shishodia, Mr. Deepanshu Rana, Mr. Deepak, Advocates with Petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with Mr. Deepankar Kataria, Advocate. Mr. Prince Sugandh, Advocate for R2 with R2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 10.07.2026 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 petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 507/2023 dated 02.10.2023, registered at Police Station Jafrabad, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of a settlement between the parties. 2. I have heard Mr. Deepanshu Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 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 14/07/2026 at 11:17:06 CRL.M.C. 4740/2026 Page 2 of 7 the State. The prosecutrix is also present in person, and is represented by Mr. Prince Sugandh, learned counsel. 3. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 herein, who alleged that, she received a call from the petitioner, who is the owner of a factory, offering her work. When she reached the factory, the petitioner closed the gate and started forcing himself upon her. He pulled her hair and hit her against the wall, causing injury to her head. She felt dizzy and fell to the ground, whereupon he started forcing himself upon her and tore her clothes. Although she attempted to save herself, the petitioner was inebriated, and committed forceful sexual acts upon her. He is also accused of having injured her on her breast, in the course of the act of rape. She was then able to run away to her home, where she became unconscious. She was also bleeding from her private parts. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Sections 376/324/506 of the IPC, in which 28 witnesses were cited and various documents were referred to, including the Medico-Legal Certificate [“MLC”] of the prosecutrix. In the chargesheet, the prosecution has referred to the MLC of the prosecutrix, as well as her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. In the statement, she has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR, and further alleged that the petitioner recorded nude videos of her and threatened her. 5. The ground upon which quashing of the FIR is now sought is that the parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 22.02.2026, which records that they have married each other. A Marriage Certificate, showing the marriage on 22.02.2026, has also been placed on record. 6. Mr. Rana submits that, in view of the subsequent marriage of the 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 14/07/2026 at 11:17:06 CRL.M.C. 4740/2026 Page 3 of 7 petitioner and the prosecutrix, and the no objection expressed by the prosecutrix, the Court may quash the FIR. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhukar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.1, in which proceedings under Section 376 of the IPC were quashed. 7. Mr. Vali, on the other hand, opposes the relief sought, on the ground that the present case does not involve a consensual relationship, but involves allegations of violent and forceful sexual intercourse, having been established against the will of the prosecutrix. He also submits that the proceedings before the Trial Court are at the stage of prosecution evidence and the prosecutrix, in her evidence, has supported the prosecution case. It is only thereafter that the aforesaid settlement has been entered into. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 528 of the BNSS, to quash criminal proceedings. The judgments of the Supreme Court inter alia in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.2 and Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.3, do permit quashing of non-compoundable offences, in exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction. However, those judgments make express and specific exceptions in the case of heinous offences such as rape. In Gian Singh, the Supreme Court observed 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 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415 [hereinafter, “Madhukar”]. 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 [hereinafter, “Gian Singh”]. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466 [hereinafter, “Narinder Singh”]. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:17:06 CRL.M.C. 4740/2026 Page 4 of 7 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.” xxx xxx xxx 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and 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 14/07/2026 at 11:17:06 CRL.M.C. 4740/2026 Page 5 of 7 serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”4 The same view has been expressed in Narinder Singh5. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Rana rightly submits that the Supreme Court and this Court have nonetheless, in certain cases, quashed FIRs, even where allegations are made in Section 376 of the IPC. He drew my attention to one such judgment of the Supreme Court, in Madhukar. However, unlike the present case, Madhukar was a case where the allegation under Section 4 Emphasis supplied. 5 Paragraphs 17 and 29.3. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:17:06 CRL.M.C. 4740/2026 Page 6 of 7 376 was made by a person, who was herself accused of an offence in a cross-FIR, registered prior to the FIR in question. While doing so, the Court expressly recognised that the offence in question was grave and heinous, but stated that the unusual circumstances where the FIR was lodged after an earlier FIR by the opposing side, gave rise to a suggestion that the FIR in question may have been a reactionary step. It is in these circumstances that the Supreme Court directed quashing of the FIR. No such circumstances are made out in the present case. 10. Certain other judgments of the Supreme Court6 and this Court7 have also quashed FIRs under Section 376 of the IPC, where the parties married each other, particularly in circumstances where the original relationship was stated to be consensual. However, the adjudication of such a petition requires a fact intensive exercise of discretion, and the facts of the present case are, in my view, altogether different. The allegations in the chargesheet, supported by the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, is of a forcible and exploitative act of rape, committed when she had gone to the petitioner’s factory, looking for work. The allegations are of a violent nature, committed while the petitioner was allegedly under the influence of alcohol, and as a result of which the prosecutrix suffered physical injuries. 11. One of the other factors, which informs the Court’s adjudication of a prayer of this nature, is the timing of the settlement8. As far as this aspect is concerned, the parties did not settle their disputes proximate to 6 Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 15 SCC 44 [hereinafter, “Kapil Gupta”]; Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1969. 7 Amit Plathia v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9158. 8 Narinder Singh, paragraph 29.7; Kapil Gupta, paragraph 13. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:17:06 CRL.M.C. 4740/2026 Page 7 of 7 the allegations being made, but only after the testimony of the prosecutrix and several other material witnesses was recorded. The case, therefore, gives rise to the distinct possibility that the settlement and the marriage have been entered into, only to avoid the trial being taken to its logical conclusion. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find the facts and circumstances of the present case to be such as to enable quashing of the impugned FIR on the basis of a settlement. 13. Accordingly, the petition, alongwith pending application, is dismissed. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 10, 2026 SS/KA/ 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 14/07/2026 at 11:17:06