Mr Rajiv Kumar Roy & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 February, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mr Rajiv Kumar Roy & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 February, 2026

Bench: Prateek Jalan

                          $~109
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         W.P.(CRL) 361/2026
                                    MR RAJIV KUMAR ROY & ORS.                   .....Petitioners
                                                 Through: Mr. Janki Raman Jha, Advocate
                                                          alongwith P-1 to 5 in Person.

                                                                  versus

                                    STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.               .....Respondents
                                                  Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel
                                                            (Criminal) with Mr. Aryan
                                                            Sachdeva, Advocate.
                                                            SI Neeraj, PS Saket.
                                                            Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit
                                                            Kumar & Mr. Abinav Kumar,
                                                            Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2
                                                            in Person.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
                                                                  ORDER

% 02.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 3481/2026 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 361/2026

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIR No. 270/2025 dated 29.07.2025, lodged at Police Station Saket, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], on the ground of settlement.

W.P.(CRL) 361/2026 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 04/02/2026 at 20:33:39

2. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Jitender Mehta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 4 is the sister of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 5 is the daughter of petitioner No. 4 [niece of petitioner No. 1].

5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 04.06.2017, but have lived separately since 09.06.2023. A child was born from the wedlock on 23.07.2022.

6. Respondent No.2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell on 16.12.2024, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against five accused persons, being her husband, parents- in-law, sister-in-law, and niece-in-law.

7. No charge sheet has been filed yet.

8. During pendency of proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, as recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 11.10.2025.

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

10. The petitioners are present, and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by her learned counsel and IO.

11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a W.P.(CRL) 361/2026 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

12. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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.

13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] 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 W.P.(CRL) 361/2026 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 04/02/2026 at 20:33:39 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.] Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], 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. 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 W.P.(CRL) 361/2026 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 04/02/2026 at 20:33:39 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."

[Emphasis supplied.]

14. 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.

15. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- to respondent No. 2, who states that Rs. 15,00,000/- has already been received. The remaining Rs. 7,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 today. There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

W.P.(CRL) 361/2026 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 04/02/2026 at 20:33:39

16. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 270/2025 dated 29.07.2025, lodged at Police Station Saket, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

17. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

18. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

19. It is, however, made clear that the settlement and the present order will not, in any way, affect the rights of the minor child, whose custody remains with respondent No. 2.

PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 2, 2026 'pv'/AD/ W.P.(CRL) 361/2026 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 04/02/2026 at 20:33:39

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders