Delhi High Court - Orders
Javed Khan vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 26 November, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~27 [25.11.2025]
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 881/2025 & CRL.M.As. 4098/2025, 4099/2025
JAVED KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given by counsel.
Petitioner (in-Person).
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State.
SI Satish Kumar and SI Priyanka, P.S.
Bara Hindu Rao.
Ms. Shashi Shanker and Ms. Pooja
Mohanani, Advocates for R-2 with
Respondent No. 2 (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 26.11.2025 [The matter has been taken up today as 25th November, 2025 was declared a holiday on account of 350th anniversary of "Guru Teg Bahadur's Martyrdom Day"]
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 184/2020 dated 10th November, 20203 registered under Sections 354/354A of the Indian Penal 1 "BNSS"
2"CrPC"3
"impugned FIR"CRL.M.C. 881/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 02/12/2025 at 20:48:16 Code, 18604 at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The prosecution's case is that on 31st October, 2020, Respondent No. 2/Complainant was allegedly harassed and threatened by her in-laws, prompting her to lodge a complaint. The next day, when the police visited the matrimonial home in connection with that grievance, the Petitioner, her brother-in-law, allegedly attempted to film her despite her objection. After the police departed, the Petitioner allegedly restrained her on the staircase, assaulted her, attempted to outrage her modesty, and threatened her, causing injuries including one to her right eye. On these allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered. Although the impugned FIR refers broadly to other in-laws, the prosecution confirms that the chargesheet has been filed only against the Petitioner under Sections 354/354A/354C IPC.
3. The parties state that, with the intervention of common acquaintances and well-wishers, Respondent No. 2 has amicably resolved her disputes with the Petitioner and no longer wishes to pursue the impugned FIR. A Settlement dated 5th June, 2024 05.06.2024 has been executed between them, a copy of which has been placed on record and perused by the Court. Under its terms, Respondent No. 2 has withdrawn the allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the impugned FIR and has agreed to voluntarily furnish her no-objection to its quashing.
4. It is further noted that, in a separate Mediation Settlement dated 5th June, 2024 arrived at before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, the broader matrimonial disputes between Respondent No. 2, her husband and 4 "IPC"
CRL.M.C. 881/2025 Page 2 of 6This 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 02/12/2025 at 20:48:16 their family members, including the Petitioner, stand resolved, which, inter alia, provides for certain property transfers in favour of the minor children of Respondent No. 2.
5. Respondent No. 2, present in Court and identified by the Investigating Officer, gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and confirms that her decision is voluntary, and free from any coercion or pressure. She acknowledges the receipt of the documents that were agreed to be returned to her under the Mediation Settlement. Her counsel has perused the same and expresses satisfaction. In view of this amicable resolution, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the subject FIR and all consequential proceedings.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Notably, Sections 354/354A/354C of IPC are non-compoundable. However, it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.5 has held as follows:
"11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.
12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent no.1 & 2, 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303 CRL.M.C. 881/2025 Page 3 of 6 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 02/12/2025 at 20:48:16 I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an an exercise in futility."
[Emphasis added]
7. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,6 the Supreme Court held as follows:
"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 6 (2014) 6 SCC 466 CRL.M.C. 881/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 02/12/2025 at 20:48:16 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."
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. Although the offences under Sections 354/354A/354C of IPC cannot be treated as strictly 'in personam', and they touch upon public concerns rather than being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also account for the practical realities of securing a conviction in the present case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where the complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction becomes exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest.
9. The Complainant in the present case has categorically expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed the settlement as voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Given this background, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and in view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds the present case to be an appropriate one for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to secure the ends of justice.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and impugned CRL.M.C. 881/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 02/12/2025 at 20:48:16 FIR No. 184/2020 as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
11. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to deposit INR 7,500/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today.
12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 26, 2025 as CRL.M.C. 881/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 02/12/2025 at 20:48:16