[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sarfaraz Ahmad & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 10 December, 2025
$~85, 86 & 87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10.12.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 8822/2025
SARFARAZ AHMAD & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Musharraf Ali, Mr. Mohd.
Danish, Advs. with all
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP
with SI Sharanya. S, PS Jamia
Nagar.
Mr. Sonu Singh, Mr. Arun
Gupta, Advs. for R-2 with R-2
in person.
86
+ CRL.M.C. 8823/2025
SARFARAZ AHMAD & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Musharraf Ali, Mr. Mohd.
Danish, Advs. with all
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP.
Mr. Sonu Singh, Mr. Arun
Gupta, Advs. for R-2 with R-2
in person.
87
+ CRL.M.C. 8824/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36809/2025 EXEMPTION
FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES
TABASUM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sonu Singh, Mr. Arun
Gupta, Advs. with petitioner in
CRL.M.C. 8822/2025, 8823/2025 & 8824/2025 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:11.12.2025
16:15:25
person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP.
Mr. Musharraf Ali, Mr. Mohd.
Danish, Advs. for R-2 with R-2
in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. These are petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of three FIRs i.e. one bearing No.
755/2017 dated 05.12.2017, for the alleged offences under Sections
354/354(B)/323/506/34 IPC, registered at PS Jamia Nagar, Delhi the
second bearing no. 81/2021 dated 18.03.2021 under Sections
498A/406 IPC, registered at PS Shaheen Bagh, Delhi and the third
bearing no. 721/2017, dated 28.10.2017, under section 324 IPC
registered at PS Jamia Nagar, Delhi and all other consequential
proceedings arising there from on the basis of a compromise.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant cases are that the
marriage between Petitioner No. 1/ Sarfaraz Ahmad and Respondent
no. 2/ Tabasum (in CRL.M.C. 8822/2025 & 8823/2025) was
solemnized on 24.04.2017 as per Muslim Rites and ceremonies. One
child was born out of the said wedlock. However, on account of
temperamental differences Petitioner no. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are
living separately since 27.11.2017.
3. As per averments made in the FIR 755/2017, petitioners forced
respondent No. 2 to abort her 5 months foetus and upon her refusal,
she was physically assaulted by the petitioners. Furthermore,
petitioner no. 4 allegedly touched her private parts inappropriately and
subsequently tore her clothes including her innerwear. Further as per
averments made in FIR No. 81/2021, respondent no. 2 was subjected
to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by
petitioners.
4. So far as FIR No. 721/2017 is concerned, Respondent No. 2
(mother in law) was subjected to physical assault with knife by
petitioner (daughter in law), thereby causing her injuries. Chargesheet
has since been filed in all the respective cases.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and
private respondents in all petitions submit that there was a
misunderstanding on the part of their clients that led to lodging of
FIRs and cross FIR, as above. The parties amicably resolved their
disputes and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing in
the form of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.05.2025. It is
submitted that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 (in CRL.M.C.
8822/2025 & 8823/2025) have obtained divorce on 02.06.2025 as per
Muslim personal laws and petitioners have already paid Rs.
10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) to Respondent No. 2/Tabassum at
the time of withdrawal of DV complaint case before the Ld. trial court.
It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 has handed over a draft of
Rs. Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) to Respondent No.
2/Tabassum alongwith Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) in cash
and 2 post dated cheques (dated 28.12.2025 & 02.01.2026) of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) each in the name of respondent no.
2/Tabassum today. It is further submitted that the custody of the child
shall remain with respondent no. 2/Tabasum. Copy of the
Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.05.2025 has been annexed
as Annexure P-3.
6. All parties are physically present before the Court. They have
been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the
Investigating Officer SI Sharanya. S, from PS Jamia Nagar.
7. Both sides confirm that the matter has been amicably settled
with the each other without any force, fear, coercion and they have no
objection if the FIR Nos. 755/2021, 81/2021 & 721/2017 are quashed
against the Petitioners. They further submit that the dispute is private
in nature. Respondent no. 2/Tabasum (in CRL.M.C. 8822/2025 &
8823/2025) confirms that she has received the entire settlement
amount and further undertakes to withdraw the execution application
pending before the Ld. Trial Court.
8. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the FIR
Nos. 755/2021, 81/2021 & 721/2017 are quashed.
9. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of
disputes by observing as under:-
"61. 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 proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings
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 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 proceedings."
10. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482
of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or
to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court
can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of
the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned
parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675.
11. The dispute between the parties, being essentially private in
nature and arising out of differences between family members. In such
circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve
no useful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process
of law. Not quashing the criminal proceedings would rather rekindle
hostility, whereas quashing the same would promote cordiality and
bonhomie between the parties.
12. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably
resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any
coercion, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the
abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
13. The petitions are allowed, and all three FIRs i.e. one bearing
No. 755/2017 dated 05.12.2017, for the alleged offences under
Sections 354/354(B)/323/506/34 IPC, registered at PS Jamia Nagar,
Delhi the second bearing no. 81/2021 dated 18.03.2021 under Sections
498A/406 IPC, registered at PS Shaheen Bagh, Delhi and the third
bearing no. 721/2017, dated 28.10.2017, under section 324 IPC
registered at PS Jamia Nagar, Delhi and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
14. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
December 10, 2025
SK
