Allowed¶12

Rajat Goel & Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Mar 2026CRL.M.C./5302/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CRL.M.C. 5302/2025 (Amit Mahajan, J., decided 12.03.2026) — quashing of FIR No. 210/2023 dated 13.02.2023, P.S. Kotwali, Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, matrimonial cruelty case; settlement MoU dated 06.12.2023; divorce by mutual consent; total settlement ₹8,00,000/- fully paid; complainant consented to quashing; Section 528 BNSS / erstwhile Section 482 CrPC inherent power to quash non-compoundable 498A offence on compromise; Supreme Court parameters in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 relied upon; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 210/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ¶12

Rajat Goel & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 210/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 210/2023 dated 13.02.2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Given the nature of the matrimonial dispute and its amicable resolution, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive; continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court, making it a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The Court noted that offence under Section 406 IPC is compoundable whereas offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable.

¶8

Key takeaways

Exercising power under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), the High Court can quash even non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled, guided by the parameters and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641.ratio¶9
FIR No. 210/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed, and the petition was allowed in those terms.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Amit Mahajan, J. (High Court of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 5302/2025, decided 12.03.2026): Petition under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 210/2023 dated 13.02.2023, P.S. Kotwali, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, arising from a matrimonial dispute — marriage of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 solemnized 02.07.2021; cruelty complaint culminated in the FIR. Parties settled by Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.12.2023, obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and paid the entire settlement of ₹8,00,000/- (₹6,00,000/- earlier; balance ₹2,00,000/- in Court). Respondent No.2, present and identified by the IO, did not wish to pursue the proceedings. Noting Section 406 IPC is compoundable but Section 498A IPC is not, and relying on the parameters in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court held that, the dispute having been amicably resolved, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it alive and continuance would amount to abuse of the process of Court; a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. FIR No. 210/2023 and all consequential proceedings were quashed; petition allowed.

¶1

$~23

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: March 12^th , 2026

¶4

+ CRL.M.C. 5302/2025

¶5

RAJAT GOEL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankit Verma, Mr.Sachin Verma and Mr.Arvind Mishra, Advocates along with Petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with SI Ekta, PS Kotwali. Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr.Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

¶10

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 210/2023 dated 13.02.2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶11

It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 02.07.2021 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock.

¶12

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5302/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, due to which, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the family members of Petitioner No.1.

¶15

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against Petitioner No. 1 and his family members alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the present FIR.

¶16

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.12.2023. It is stated that Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶17

In terms of the said settlement, out of the total settlement amount of ₹8,00,000/-, an amount of ₹6,00,000/- has already been paid to Respondent No.2 and the balance amount of ₹2,00,000/- has been paid today to Respondent No.2.

¶18

Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and Respondent No. 2 are present in the Court and they have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶19

On being asked, Respondent No.2 submits that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and she has no objection if the same is quashed.

¶20

Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5302/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶24

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNSS ’) [ erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶25

“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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5302/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.”

¶35

(emphasis supplied)

¶36

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶37

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶38

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶39

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is noncompoundable.

¶40

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5302/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶43

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶44

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶45

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶46

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶47

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶48

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5302/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶52

oppression and prejudice; and

¶53

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶54

(emphasis supplied)

¶55

Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶56

In view of the above, FIR No. 210/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 13. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶57

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶58

MARCH 12, 2025/ DU

¶59

Signature Not Verified

¶60

Page 6 of 6

¶61

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5302/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

Rajat Goel & Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Goel & Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi & 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

MD Miraz and Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sh Sameer Sehgal & Ors. Vs the State, Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Hira Malhotra Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Siddharth Jain Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Hanif Khan and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Neendar & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.