Disposed

Ramesh Sehgal v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC13 May 2026CRL.M.C./1042/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landlord sought quashing of FIR alleging molestation of his paying guest after parties settled disputes through a Memorandum of Understanding. The complainant affirmed the settlement was voluntary and no objection to quashing. Court exercised inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings, subject to depositing Rs. 15,000 with DHCLSC.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramesh Sehgal Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13^th May, 2026

¶2

CRL.M.C. 1042/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4106/2026 RAMESH SEHGAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Arya, Advocate. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State with SI Praveen Kumar.

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶5

Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 0117/2018 dated 03.05.2018, registered at Police Station Rani Bagh (North West), for commission of offences under Sections 354/354(A)/342506/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶6

The copy of FIR is on record and as per the averments appearing in the FIR, respondent No.2 was staying as a Paying Guest at the premises of accused/landlord and used to pay him rent regularly. On the date of the incident, when she had gone to him to pay the rent, the accused, as per the allegations, caught hold of her, pulled her into his arms and kissed her. When she claimed that she would inform the police, she was threatened.

¶7

In the FIR, there was no reference about any act committed by the daughter of the petitioner-accused but, fact remains, that his daughter was also charge-sheeted for criminal intimidation.

¶8

Petitioner and his daughter were both directed to be charged.

¶9

However, when such order was assailed by filing a Revision Petition, the learned Revisional Court discharged the daughter of the petitioner herein

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

CRL.M.C. 1042/2026 1

¶12

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 5.05.2026 10:44:33

¶13

holding that there was no sufficient material to charge her and, accordingly, the order on charge, sofaras it related to her, was set aside.

¶14

The quashing is now being sought for the reason that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that they have entered into a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 12.01.2026 and have been able to resolve all their disputes.

¶15

Petitioner is present with his counsel. 8. Respondent No.2 is also present in person. She has been duly identified by I.O. The Court has made query from her and, in response to such query, she submits that she has entered into voluntarily settlement with the petitioner and now she is not interested in pursuing with the abovesaid complaint.

¶16

She submits that she has entered into such settlement without any coercion, threat or influence of any nature whatsoever and is completely voluntarily in nature and therefore, she would have ‘ no objection ’ if FIR in question is quashed.

¶17

She has already vacated the abovesaid Paying Guest accommodation and submits that both the sides now want to lead their respective lives without interference from each other and the compromise has taken place for the betterment of their future lives. She also submits that the petitioner has already apologized for the incident in question and she has already forgiven him.

¶18

Petitioner, who is a retired official, has no other involvement of any nature whatsoever.

¶19

After the incident, respondent No.2 has also got married and has moved on with her life and, therefore, she is not interested in pursuing with the present incident.

¶20

CRL.M.C. 1042/2026 2

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 5.05.2026 10:44:33

¶23

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially, when dispute does not involve any public interest and is, primarily, private in nature. In any case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners.

¶24

Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

¶25

Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 0117/2018 dated 03.05.2018, registered at Police Station Rani Bagh (North West), for commission of offences under Sections 354/354(A)/342 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed subject to petitioner depositing cost of Rs. 15,000/- in the account of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within four weeks. Proof of deposit and original affidavits of the parties be submitted to the learned Trial Court within further two weeks.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶27

Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶28

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶29

MAY 13, 2026/ss/pb

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

CRL.M.C. 1042/2026 3

¶32

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 5.05.2026 10:44:33

Ramesh Sehgal v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramesh Sehgal v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anshul Gupta Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Amit Dhawan and Ors. Vs the State N C T of Delhi and Anr.

Abdul Rabbani @ Rabba Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Pankaj Gupta & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Ahmad Ali Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sahil Saleem Khan Vs State NCT of Delhi