Khurshid Ahmad v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR
$~28-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + KHURSHID AHMAD .....Petitioner Through:
Ms. Anjani Kumar Singh & Mr.
Ayush Mishra, Advocates.
versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State.
SI Dharmveer, PS Dabri.
R-2 in Person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R
% 21.04.2026 1.
By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023["BNSS"] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"]), the petitionerseeks quashing of FIR No. 775/2017, dated18.12.2017, registered under Sections 498A of the IndianPenal Code, 1860,at P.S. Dabri, District Dwarka, Delhi and all consequential proceedingsemanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2.
Issue notice. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of State.Respondent No. 2 appears in person and declines the assistance of counsel.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
3.
The petitioner is present in Court, andis identified byhis learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and is identified by the IO. 4.
The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 5.
The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who was the wife of petitioner.
6.
The marriage between petitionerand respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 20.11.2014, according to Muslim rites and customs. No child was born outof the wedlock.Due to matrimonial discord and differences in temperament, the parties have been living separately since 2017.
7.
Respondent No. 2 thereafter lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, which was later registered as the impugned FIR against three accused persons, being her husband, and her parents-in-law. 8.
A chargesheet was subsequently filed on 05.07.2018 against the petitioner. However, the parents-in-law of respondent No. 2 were not chargesheeted.
9.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 30.01.2020, under the aegis of Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts.
10.
The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 11.
Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved in accordance with Personal Law.
12.
In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
13.
Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPCis noncompoundable, the Supreme Court has held that, in suitable circumstances, High Courts may, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, where a compromise has been reached between the accused and the complainant, provided that such quashing does not adversely affect any broader public interest.
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 1(2012) 10 SCC 303.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 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 2Emphasis supplied.
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.
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 15.
In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.
16.
The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to respondent No. 2, which she states has already been received by her. 17.
In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 775/2017, dated 18.12.2017, registered under Sections498Aof the IPC at 4Emphasis supplied.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Police StationP.S. Dabri, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
18.
The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19.
The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 21, 2026 'pv'/AD/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.