Allowed

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

Delhi HC12 Mar 2026CRL.M.C./5452/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR for offences including Sections 323/325/452/34 IPC arising from a family scuffle with the complainant mother-in-law and her daughter. The parties settled amicably with compensation paid. Applying Supreme Court guidelines on quashing upon settlement, the court held continuation would abuse process and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 261/2022 registered at PS Hauz Qazi under Sections 323/325/452/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

Rajat Goel & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~24

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: March 12, 2026

¶4

+ CRL.M.C. 5452/2025

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

RAJAT GOEL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankit Verma, Mr.Sachin Verma and Mr.Arvind Mishra, Advocates along with Petitioners in person.

¶7

versus

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶10

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 261/2022 dated 24.11.2022, registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, for offences under Sections 323/325/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’) and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5452/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶15

Briefly stated, on 02.11.2022, Respondent No. 2 had visited the matrimonial house of her daughter as she was being harassed by her in-laws. Respondent No.2 stayed at the house for a day, whereafter, on 03.11.2022, due to some misunderstanding, a scuffle took place in which the petitioners verbally abused her extensively and physically assaulted Respondent No.2 as well as her daughter. The petitioners also ousted Respondent No.2 and her daughter from the house, and Respondent No.2 sustained an injury on her hand during the incident. This led to registration of FIR. Chargesheet has been filed in the case.

¶16

Petitioner No.1 was the son-in-law of Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.2 is his mother.

¶17

The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, out of their own free will, without any coercion, undue influence, pressure or threat. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all disputes have been settled between the parties, including, FIR bearing no. 210/2023, registered at police station Kotwali, which had also been registered at the instance of Respondent No.2’s daughter.

¶18

He submits that an amount of ₹30,000/- is being paid today to the Respondent No. 2 as compensation from Petitioner No.1, through UPI (Transaction ID T2603121254033194597309).

¶19

The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶20

On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that she is satisfied with the settlement and does not wish to pursue any

¶21

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5452/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶22

Page 2 of 7

¶23

proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same is quashed. She submits that all the misunderstandings have since been resolved and the pendency of the case will only cause unnecessary harassment.

¶24

Respondent No.2’s daughter also affirms that she also does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the FIR. 10. Offences under Sections 323/325 of the IPC are compoundable in nature and offences under Sections 452 of the IPC is non-compoundable.

¶25

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 :-

¶26

“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:

¶27

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

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Page 3 of 7

¶30

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5452/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Page 4 of 7

¶40

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5452/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶41

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 :-

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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 non-compoundable.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Page 5 of 7

¶50

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5452/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶51

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.

¶52

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. 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.

¶53

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 oppression and prejudice; and

¶54

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.”

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Page 6 of 7

¶57

Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 5452/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 3.03.2026 17:53:56

¶58

(emphasis supplied)

¶59

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, 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 considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶60