Hariom Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The petitioner has filed 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”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 538/2019, dated 14.11.2019, registered at Police Station Bawana, District Outer North, Delhi, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

¶12

The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and identified by the IO.

¶13

Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

CRL.M.C. 5089/2026

¶16

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 27/07/2026 at 15:13:20

¶17

declines assistance of counsel.

¶18

Respondent No. 2 was married to the son of the petitioner [hereinafter, “husband”] on 08.05.2014, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the said wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 18.09.2019.

¶19

Thereafter, respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint against the petitioner, who is her father-in-law, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR. The said FIR contains allegations of sexual assault. Although the FIR also contains certain allegations against respondent No. 2’s brother-in-law, i.e. Vikas, I am informed that those are a subject matter of a separate FIR, in which the accused, who was a Child in Conflict with Law, has been acquitted.

¶20

In the present proceedings, chargesheet has already been filed against the petitioner.

¶21

During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No. 2 entered into a settlement with the petitioner and her husband, as recorded in a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 17.03.2026. The settlement contemplates dissolution of marriage between respondent No. 2 and her husband, and payment of Rs.75,000/- to respondent No. 2, as full and final settlements towards all her claims.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent No. 2 specifically states that she is satisfied with the terms of settlement, and the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding on account of matrimonial disputes with her husband.

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

CRL.M.C. 5089/2026

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 27/07/2026 at 15:13:20

¶27

Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 29.04.2026, passed by the Family Courts.

¶28

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

¶29

The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the 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.

¶30

The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ has held as follows:

¶31

“ 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,

¶32

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

CRL.M.C. 5089/2026

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 27/07/2026 at 15:13:20

¶37

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. ”²

¶38

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.³ , 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:

¶39

“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:

¶40

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.

¶41

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding

¶42

2 Emphasis supplied.

¶43

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶44

Page 4 of 6

¶45

CRL.M.C. 5089/2026

¶46

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 27/07/2026 at 15:13:20

¶47

factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶48

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶49

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.

¶50

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 .

¶51

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.”⁴

¶52

In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of familial disputes, and the marriage of respondent No. 2 and her husband has already culminated in a decree of divorce. It is reiterated that respondent No. 2 states before this Court that the allegations under Section 354 of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding in context of the said matrimonial disputes. 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

¶53

4 Emphasis supplied.

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

CRL.M.C. 5089/2026

¶56

This is a digitally signed order.

¶57

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 27/07/2026 at 15:13:20

¶58

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.

¶59

As noted above, the settlement contemplates payment of Rs. 75,000/- to respondent No. 2, and I am informed that out of the said amount, Rs.50,000/- has already been paid. The remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 today in Court. There is therefore no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶60

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 538/2019 dated 14.11.2019, registered at Police Station Bawana, District Outer North, Delhi, under Section 354 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶61

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

¶62

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶63

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶64

JULY 22, 2026 SS/MK/

¶65

Page 6 of 6

¶66

CRL.M.C. 5089/2026

¶67

This is a digitally signed order.

¶68

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 27/07/2026 at 15:13:20

Hariom v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom v. the State Govt. of 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

Shivdhar Upadhyay Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary Home & Ors.

Shakuntala Dev @ Shankutla Devi & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pawan Yadav Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Akansha and Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Shukla Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Suhani Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.