Delhi High Court - Orders
Amit Rajput And Ors vs State (Gnctd) & Anr on 14 January, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~123
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 294/2026
AMIT RAJPUT AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Sunaina, Mr. Jagjit, Mr.
Lakshay Beniwal, Ms. Appurvi,
Mr. Yudhvir Dalal & Mr. Anshul,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (GNCTD) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State
with SI Sanju Kumari, P.S. Palam
Village.
Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate for R2
alongwith R2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 14.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 1093/2026 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 1094/2026 (for condonation of delay in re-filing) This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in re-filing the captioned petition.
For the reasons stated, the application is allowed, and the delay is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 294/20261. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Pankaj Singh, CRL.M.C. 294/2026 Page 1 of 5 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 15/01/2026 at 20:37:47 learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
2. By way of 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"]), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 188/2022, dated 23.04.2022, registered under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, on the ground of settlement.
3. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 - complainant, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, respectively. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 354C/34/201 of the IPC.
4. Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant were married on 21.01.2014, but have been living separately since 02.03.2022. One child was born from the wedlock on 17.11.2014.
5. Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.12.2024. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
6. The petitioners are present, and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. The complainant is also present in person, and is identified by her learned counsel, who is present on video conference, and the IO.
7. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court on 03.05.2025.
8. The settlement also records that petitioner No. 1 has returned all CRL.M.C. 294/2026 Page 2 of 5 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 15/01/2026 at 20:37:47 the articles/belongings of the complainant, including her jewellery, clothes, educational documents, and passport.
9. As the Memorandum of Understanding was only signed by petitioner No. 1 and the complainant, the complainant's statement has been recorded separately. She has stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR against all three petitioners. A copy of the statement be kept in a sealed cover. The electronic record will have the name of the complainant redacted.
10. Although the offences under Sections 354C and 201 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 CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of 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.
11. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court 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 CRL.M.C. 294/2026 Page 3 of 5 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 15/01/2026 at 20:37:47 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."
[Emphasis supplied.]
12. 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 complainant has also 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.
13. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 188/2022, dated 23.04.2022, registered under Section 354C of the IPC, at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed.
14. The petition stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 294/2026 Page 4 of 5This 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 15/01/2026 at 20:37:47
15. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child of 11 years, whose custody remains with the complainant.
PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 14, 2026 'pv/KA'/ CRL.M.C. 294/2026 Page 5 of 5 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 15/01/2026 at 20:37:47