Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohd Izrail Haque & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 27 January, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~110
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 650/2026
MOHD IZRAIL HAQUE & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rahber Ali, Advocate
alongwith P1 to 3 in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State
with SI Ravi Yadav, PS
Govindpuri.
Mr. Furkan Ahmed and Mr.
Konain Imtiyazul Haque,
Advocates for R2 alongwith R2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 27.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 2581/2026 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 650/20261. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Furkan Ahmed, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 - complainant.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"] (corresponding to CRL.M.C. 650/2026 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 28/01/2026 at 20:35:35 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 497/2022 dated 14.07.2022, registered at Police Station Govind Puri, District South-East, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 25.09.2021, but have been living separately since 14.02.2022.
4. Respondent No. 2 instituted proceedings before the Crime against Women Cell on 14.07.2022. Thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered, at her instance, against four accused persons being her husband, parents-in-law, and brother-in-law. Respondent No. 2's father- in-law has since died on 28.09.2023.
5. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have entered into a settlement dated 24.04.2025, under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
6. The petitioners are present in person, and are identified by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and has been identified by her learned counsel and the IO.
7. The terms of the settlement inter alia provide that petitioner No. 1 will pay an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- towards a full and final settlement, of which Rs. 4,00,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of the impugned FIR. I am informed that a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is being paid to respondent No. 2 towards the full and final settlement. Mr. Rahber Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, has handed over a cheque CRL.M.C. 650/2026 Page 2 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 28/01/2026 at 20:35:35 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Mr. Ahmed. A copy of the cheque is handed up in Court and is taken on record.
8. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties have mutually dissolved their marriage, as recorded in a Khula letter dated 18.10.2025.
9. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
10. 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 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the 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 respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude CRL.M.C. 650/2026 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 28/01/2026 at 20:35:35 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.] Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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 CRL.M.C. 650/2026 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 28/01/2026 at 20:35:35
(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 him by not quashing the criminal cases."
[Emphasis supplied.]
12. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a divorce. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that 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.
13. As noted above, the amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- mentioned in the settlement, as also an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, has been paid to respondent No. 2. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.
14. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and CRL.M.C. 650/2026 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 28/01/2026 at 20:35:35 FIR No. 497/2022 dated 14.07.2022, registered at Police Station Govind Puri, District South-East, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
15. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
16. The petition stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 27, 2026 'pv/KA'/ CRL.M.C. 650/2026 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 28/01/2026 at 20:35:35