Allowed¶17

Ram Charan Verma & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Jul 2026W.P.(CRL)/894/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court quashes FIR No. 198/2023, PS Sector-23 Dwarka, Section 498A IPC, after matrimonial settlement between parties; applies Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, para 61 guidelines on exercise of inherent quashing powers; matters CRL.M.C. 4248/2026 (Sushant Verma) and W.P.(CRL) 894/2024 (Ram Charan Verma & Anr.); FIR and all consequential actions quashed, pending applications disposed, hearing of 11.08.2026 cancelled; Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav; order dated 02.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed: FIR No. 198/2023 and all actions pursuant to the said FIR stand quashed; pending applications disposed of; next date of hearing (11.08.2026) cancelled. ¶17

Ram Charan Verma & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions allowed: FIR No. 198/2023 and all actions pursuant to the said FIR stand quashed; pending applications disposed of; next date of hearing (11.08.2026) cancelled.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 198/2023 (Police Station Sector-23, Dwarka; Section 498A IPC), arising out of a matrimonial dispute since settled between the parties, may be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

¶9

Court's answer

Having considered the nature of the offence and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the Court found that there is no impediment in quashing the impugned FIR and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 198/2023 and all actions pursuant to the said FIR were ordered quashed; pending applications were disposed of and the hearing listed for 11.08.2026 was cancelled.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4248/2026 (Sushant Verma) and Criminal Writ Petition No. 894/2024 (Ram Charan Verma & Anr.), both before the High Court of Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.; decided 02.07.2026), sought quashing of FIR No. 198/2023, Police Station Sector-23, Dwarka, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The parties contended that a settlement had taken place and most terms had been complied with, with cooperation assured for the outstanding terms; identities were verified by the respective counsel and the Investigating Officer, and the complainant, Ms. Neetu Verma, was present in Court. Relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para. 61) — under which the High Court may, in its inherent jurisdiction, quash criminal proceedings of predominantly private/matrimonial character where a full and complete settlement renders conviction remote and bleak and continuation would cause oppression and injustice — the Court held that there was no impediment in quashing the impugned FIR and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto. FIR No. 198/2023 and all actions pursuant to it were quashed; pending applications stood disposed of; the hearing scheduled for 11.08.2026 was cancelled.

¶1

$~14 & 16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 4248/2026 SUSHANT VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sushant Verma with Mrs. Subhadra Verma & Mr. Ram Charan Verma, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP. Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath, Advocate for R2 along with R2 in person. SI Ekta, PS Sector -23, Dwarka.

¶4

W.P.(CRL) 894/2024 & CRL.M.As.17096-97/2026 RAM CHARAN VERMA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sushant Verma with Mrs. Subhadra Verma & Mr. Ram Charan Verma, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rubali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr Abhijeet Kumar & Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates. Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath, Advocate for R2 along with R2 in person. SI Ekta, PS Sector -23, Dwarka.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.07.2026

¶7

This is a digitally signed order.

¶8

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 06/07/2026 at 10:35:29

¶9

These two writ petitions have arisen out of FIR No. 198/2023 registered at Police Station Sector – 23 Dwarka for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The parties contend that the settlement has taken place and most of the terms of the settlement have already been complied with. It is however pointed out on behalf of Ms. Neetu Verma, the complainant, who is also present in Court along with counsel that some of the terms are yet to be complied with, for which, the petitioners’ counsel submits that all cooperation shall be rendered.

¶10

The identity of the petitioners as well as of the complainant in both the matters has been verified by the respective counsel and the Investigating Officer.

¶11

The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph no. 61 has held has under:

¶12

“ 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.; cannot provide for any basis for

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 06/07/2026 at 10:35:29

¶15

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.”

¶16

Having considered the nature of the offence and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the Court finds that there is no impediment in quashing the impugned FIR and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto.

¶17

Accordingly, the FIR No. 198/2023 and all actions pursuant to the said FIR stand quashed.

¶18

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶19

The next date of hearing i.e., 11.08.2026 stands cancelled.

¶20

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶21

JULY 2, 2026 tr

¶22

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 06/07/2026 at 10:35:29

Ram Charan Verma & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Charan Verma & Anr. v. 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

Riya Verma & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ca Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs State NCT of Delhi

Kamlesh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Bittu Kumar & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Manmohan Singh @Monu@Jagdish Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mohd Naushad Hussain & Anr. Vs the State Govt.of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pooja Gulati Vs Union of India & Anr.

Umesh Vs State (Gnct of Delhi)

Bhishan Singh @ Monu Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Mr Ankit Lohiya Vs the State

Riya Verma & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Anshad Badruddin Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Rajeev Nag Vs State of Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Deepak Rathi @ Monty Vs State of NCT Delhi