Tulsi Gautam & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 1347 Del

Delhi High Court

Tulsi Gautam & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 11 March, 2026

                  $~67
                  *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  %                             Date of Decision: 11th March, 2026
                  +      CRL.M.C. 8934/2025

                         TULSI GAUTAM & ORS.                           .....Petitioners
                                      Through:           Mr. Kamal Singh, Adv.
                                                         All the petitioners in person.

                                            versus

                         THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
                         & ANR.                            .....Respondents
                                      Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the
                                                State with SI Nitin, PS Burari.
                                                Mr. Akash, Mr. Kartik Shankar
                                                and Ms. R. Priya, Advs. for R-
                                                2.
                                                R-2 in person.

                         CORAM:
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

                  AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 7173/2026 (early hearing)

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the present petition is taken up for hearing today.

2. The date already fixed, that is, 30.03.2026, stands cancelled.

3. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 307/2023 dated 04.03.2023, registered at Police Station Burari, for offences under Sections 354/323/509/506/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No.

2. One Dayanand, who is the Devar/brother-in-law of the Complainant, was married to one Nisha Rani @ Prachi. The Petitioners are the family members of Smt. Nisha Rani i.e. the Petitioner No. 1/ Tulsi Gautam and Petitioner No. 3/Ravinder Kumar are cousins and sons of Petitioner No. 2/ Sh. Ram Pal and Petitioner No. 4/ Sh. Kanchan Singh, respectively.

5. The FIR was registered pursuant to allegations made by the complainant that, on 11.11.2022, due to certain ongoing matrimonial disputes between the families of Dayanand and Nisha, the family members of Smt. Nisha i.e. the Petitioners initiated a physical altercation with the family members of Dayanand i.e. his sister-in- law/Complainant, his sister Rekha and old parents. It is further alleged that the Petitioners No. 1 and 3 groped the complainant and outraged her modesty.

6. The Chargesheet has been filed in the present case, for offences under Sections 354(B)/323/509/506/427/34 of the IPC against Petitioner No. 1 and 3 and for offences under Sections 323/509/506/427/34 of the IPC against Petitioner No. 2 and 4.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sister of Petitioner No. 1, i.e. Smt. Nisha, is involved in matrimonial acrimony and multiple litigations with brother-in-law of the complainant i.e. Sh. Dayanand, which led to certain heated arguments between the parties eventually leading to an altercation on the date of the incident, pursuant to which the present FIR was registered.

8. He submits that all their disputes have since been resolved and the sister of Petitioner No. 1 and brother-in-law of the Complainant have also decided to bury all their disputes and have also filed the proceedings for annulment of their marriage. Since the parties have moved on in life they do not wish to pursue any proceedings emanating therefrom and the pendency of the present FIR will only lead to further harassment of the parties.

9. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.09.2025, out of their own free will and without any force, undue pressure, influence, misrepresentation or mistake.

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

11. The complainant states that all the disputes have since been resolved between the parties. She further submits that certain exaggerated complaints were made pursuant to matrimonial dsiputes between her brother-in-law and sister of Petitioner No. 1. She further submits that now the parties have decided to bury their disputes and she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed.

12. The Petitioners, present in Court, state that another FIR, being FIR No. 803/2024, was registered at the instance of sister of Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Smt. Nisha before Police Station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

13. They submit that since all the disputes have been resolved, steps would be taken for quashing of the said FIR and the petitioners would

also cooperate in the same. A memorandum of settlement dated 08.09.2025, between Dayanand and Nisha Rani, has also been placed on record.

14. The petitioners as well as the complainant state that they will take steps to end all the pending proceedings and they undertake to cooperate with each other.

15. Offences under Sections 323/509/506/427 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Section 354(B) of the IPC is non-compoundable.

16. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can compound offences which are non-compoundable 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 :-

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

(emphasis supplied)

17. 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 :-

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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."

(emphasis supplied)

18. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 has stated that certain exaggerated complaints were made pursuant to matrimonial acrimony between her brother-in-law/Dayanand and sister of Petitioner No. 1/Smt. Nisha. She has stated that all the disputes have since been resolved between the parties and she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will

result in a conviction when Respondent No. 2 herself does not wish to pursue the case. Also, the parties are family members of Dayanand and Nisha, who have decided to part ways in life and in such circumstances, continuance of the proceedings would only cause ill will to fester between the parties.

19. 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.

20. In view of the above, FIR No. 307/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

21. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 11, 2026 'KDK'