Safi Rehman & ORS. v. State Of NCT, Delhi & ANR.

$~31 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ SAFI REHMAN & ORS.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Parveen Kumar and Mr.

Abhay Singh, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.

SI Deepak, PS-Budh Vihar.

R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 02.04.2026 1.

The petitioners have filed this petition 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. 488/2022 dated 15.10.2022, registered at Police Station Budh Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 354/354(B)/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 appears in person and states that she does not seek the assistance of counsel.

3.

Respondent No. 2 was married on 04.08.2017. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, alleging that petitioner No. 1- her brother-in-law, alongwith her husband's other family members, subjected her to physical assault and harassment. It is alleged that she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home and compelled to The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

wander with her minor child, aged about two years, without basic necessities such as clothes and food. Specific allegations have been levelled against one co-accused, who is respondent No. 2's brother-inlaw, of outraging her modesty by inappropriate physical contact. It is further alleged that her clothes were torn and she was manhandled by the accused persons. As reflected in the Medico-Legal Certificate ["MLC"], the injuries suffered by respondent No. 2 were simple in nature. 4.

Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 03.12.2022 against the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts.

5.

The parties have since entered into a settlement, as recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 06.10.2025. The settlement has been arrived at without any monetary consideration.

6.

In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

7.

The parties are present in Court, and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer as well as their respective learned counsel. 8.

Respondent No. 2 is present in person and confirms that the allegations under Sections 354/354B/509 IPC arose out of a misunderstanding, and that respondent No.2 and her husband are now cohabiting together.

9.

Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, and without any coercion or undue pressure. 10.

Although the offences under Sections 354/354B of the IPC are non-compoundable, 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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.

11.

The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, 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-andfast category can be prescribed."2 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

2 Emphasis supplied.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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.

(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 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

him by not quashing the criminal cases."4 12.

In the present case, the offences alleged in the subject FIR arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties and are essentially private in nature.

Respondent No.

has appeared before this Court and categorically affirmed that the allegations under Sections 354/354B/509 IPC arose out of a misunderstanding stemming from the said dispute, and that the parties are now cohabiting peacefully. The injuries, as reflected in the MLC, are simple in nature. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in a conviction, and their continuation would be a mere formality, adding to the burden on the justice system and unnecessarily consuming public resources.

13.

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 488/2022 dated 15.10.2022, registered at Police Station Budh Vihar, District Rohini, Delhi, under Sections 354/354(B)/509 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

14.

The parties shall abide the terms of the settlement. 15.

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 2, 2026 'Bhupi/JM'/ 4 Emphasis supplied.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.