Allowed¶44

Sultan Miraj Ali & Ors. v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026CRL.M.C./4785/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 4785/2026, High Court of Delhi, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.; quashing of FIR No. 0406/2023 dated 19.08.2023, PS Jaitpur, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 on the basis of settlement; matrimonial dispute; mubaratnama/settlement agreement dated 22.01.2026; Rs. 2 lakhs paid to respondent no.2; reliance on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 para 29 and Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 para 61; inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code; ends of justice; abuse of process; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 0406/2023 dated 19.08.2023 registered at Police Station Jaitpur, New Delhi, for offences under Sections 498A/406/506/34, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners; petition disposed of. ¶44

Sultan Miraj Ali & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 0406/2023 dated 19.08.2023 (Police Station Jaitpur, New Delhi) for offences under Sections 498A/406/506/34 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶11

Court's answer

Taking into account the settlement arrived at between the parties, there being no opposition from the State, and for the maintenance of peace and harmony between them and the well-being of respondent no.2, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 0406/2023 dated 19.08.2023 for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/506/34 registered at Police Station Jaitpur, New Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners, are quashed.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.) allowed CRL.M.C. 4785/2026 and quashed FIR No. 0406/2023 dated 19.08.2023 registered at Police Station Jaitpur, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/506/34, together with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of settlement between the parties. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, whose marriage was solemnized on 09.08.2020 as per Muslim rites, had dissolved the marriage by mutual consent through a mubaratnama/settlement agreement dated 22.01.2026; a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was handed over to respondent no.2, who confirmed receipt and did not oppose the quashing, and the State also raised no objection. Applying the principles in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 (para 29) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 61) — that criminal cases having an overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes, may be quashed where the parties have resolved their entire disputes, to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any court — the Court put a quietus to the litigation between the parties and disposed of the petition.

¶1

$~96

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4785/2026

¶4

SULTAN MIRAJ ALI & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Tushar Mahajan and Mr. Bhaavan Mahajan, Advocates along with petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP along with IO. Respondent no.2 in person.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.07.2026

¶11

The petitioners seek for quashment of the FIR no. 0406/2023 dated 19.08.2023 for offence punishable under Section 498A/406/506/34 registered at Police Station Jaitpur, New Delhi, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶12

The petition nos. 1 and 3 are physically present, whereas, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are appearing through virtual mode. Respondent no.2 is also present. The parties have been identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶13

The facts of the case would indicate that the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 09.08.2020 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies. On account of some temperamental issues, the parties started to live separately and the FIR in question came to be lodged. The marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 has been

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 16/07/2026 at 11:27:22

¶16

dissolved by mutual consent by way of the mubaratnama/ settlement agreement dated 22.01.2026.

¶17

As a part of settlement, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was to be paid to respondent no.2. The same has been handed over to respondent no.2, who confirms the receipt of the same. Thus, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.

¶18

On behalf of the State there is no opposition in quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 and the statement of the respondent no.2.

¶19

The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ vide paragraph no.29 has held as under:

¶20

“ 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:

¶21

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.

¶22

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:

¶23

(i) ends of justice, or

¶24

(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.

¶25

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which

¶26

1 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 16/07/2026 at 11:27:22

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

¶33

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the

¶34

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 16/07/2026 at 11:27:22

¶35

investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime .”

¶36

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another² , vide paragraph no.61 has held as under:-

¶37

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.;

¶38

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 16/07/2026 at 11:27:22

¶41

cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶42

Taking into account the settlement arrived at between the parties and there being no opposition from the State and for the maintenance of peace and harmony between them and for the well being of the respondent no.2, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties.

¶43

In view of the aforesaid, the FIR No. 0406/2023 dated 19.08.2023 for offence punishable under Section 498A/406/506/34 registered at Police Station Jaitpur, New Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed.

¶44

The petition stands disposed of.

¶45

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶46

JULY 13, 2026/ aks

¶47

Sultan Miraj Ali & Ors. v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan Miraj Ali & Ors. v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aas Mohd Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Ramji Lal Vs State & Ors.

Mehndi and Another Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Bayem Victor Vs State of NCT of Delhi

M/S Inderpal Singh Bhalla Vs Ultrahome Construction Private Limited & Ors.

Bhavneet Singh Vs Jasbir Singh