Suraj Parkash and Others Vs State and Others

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of FIR No. 456/2018 dated 26.11.2018, registered at Police Station Alipur, District Rohini, Delhi, under Sections 354(A)/406/498A/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

¶11

Issue notice. Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. The respondent No. 2, who is not represented by counsel, appears through video conference and accepts notice.

¶12

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 13.04.2014 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born

¶13

CRL.M.C. 9335/2025 Page 1 of 6

¶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 20/01/2026 at 12:20:49

¶16

from the said wedlock. Differences arose in the course of marriage, and they started residing separately since 25.04.2018.

¶17

Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell against her husband (petitioner No. 1) and five of his family members, on the basis of which the subject FIR was registered on 26.11.2018. A chargesheet has since been filed, and the matter is pending as Criminal Case No. 1900/2021, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-01, Rohini Courts, District North, Delhi.

¶18

It is noted that one Govind Ram, father of petitioner No. 1, who was also named in the FIR, passed away on 15.10.2021 during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶19

The disputes between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were referred to counselling at Rohini Courts. Pursuant thereto, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement dated 22.02.2024 before the Principal Counsellor, Rohini Courts, whereby they resolved all their disputes and agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Respondent No. 2 also agreed to cooperate in the quashing of the present FIR.

¶20

Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini, District North, Delhi, [in HMA No. 1473/2024] on 23.09.2024.

¶21

The petitioners are present on video conference, and are identified by Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is present on video conference, and is identified by the IO.

¶22

CRL.M.C. 9335/2025 Page 2 of 6

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 20/01/2026 at 12:20:49

¶25

Ms. Rekha Aggarwal and respondent No. 2 submit that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, and without any coercion or undue pressure. In view thereof, they seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings.

¶26

Although the offences under Sections 354A and 498A of IPC are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of 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.

¶27

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

¶28

“ 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,

¶29

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶30

CRL.M.C. 9335/2025 Page 3 of 6

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 20/01/2026 at 12:20:49

¶33

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

¶34

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:

¶35

“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:

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

2 Emphasis supplied.

¶39

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶40

CRL.M.C. 9335/2025 Page 4 of 6

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

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 20/01/2026 at 12:20:49

¶43

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

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 .

¶47

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

¶48

In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. 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 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.

¶49

4 Emphasis supplied.

¶50

CRL.M.C. 9335/2025 Page 5 of 6

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 20/01/2026 at 12:20:49

¶53

The settlement records that no monetary amount is payable by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2, and that respondent No.2 has, of her own volition, waived and relinquished all claims towards past, present and future maintenance, permanent alimony, stridhan, dowry articles and any other monetary or proprietary claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship. There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

¶54

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and proceedings arising out of FIR No. 456/2018 dated 26.11.2018, registered at Police Station Alipur, District Rohini, Delhi, under Sections 354(A)/406/498A/509/34 of the IPC are hereby quashed.

¶55

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

¶56

The petition, alongwith the pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

¶57

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶58

JANUARY 17, 2026 SS/JM/

¶59

CRL.M.C. 9335/2025 Page 6 of 6

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

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 20/01/2026 at 12:20:49

Suraj Parkash and Others v. State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Parkash and Others v. State and Others

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

Deepak Sharma Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Sumiti Kaur Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Balwan Khokhar Vs State NCT of Delhi

Saleem Ul Rehman @Wasim Vs State NCT of Delhi

Priya Gupta Vs State NCT of Delhi

Pankaj @ Kachodi Vs State of NCT of Delhi