[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Hanif Khan And Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 12 March, 2026
$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12th March, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1818/2026 & CRL.M.A. 7462/2026
HANIF KHAN AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv.
along with all the petitioners.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the
State.
ASI Ramdass, PS Ghazipur.
Mr. Akash Deep Arya, Adv. for
R-2 along with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
311/2022 dated 06.05.2022, registered at Police Station Ghazipur, for
offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
('IPC'), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is averred that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and
Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 09.03.2019 as per Muslim rites
and ceremonies. One female child was born out of the said wedlock.
Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took
place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 started living separately. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are
the family members of Petitioner No. 1.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against
Petitioner No. 1 and his family members alleging that she was
subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the present
FIR. Allegations of harassment on account of dowry demands and
outraging of modesty have also been made.
4. Chargesheet has been filed against Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 for
the offences under 506/498A/406/34 of the IPC and under Sections
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('DP Act'). Petitioner Nos.2 and
5 have been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections
354/498A/34/506 of the IPC. Petitioner No. 3 has been charge sheeted
for the offences under Sections 498A/506/34 of the IPC.
5. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is
amicably settled between the parties in the Counselling Cell, Family
Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the parties entered into
Settlement Agreement dated 05.12.2025 without any force, coercion,
undue influence and pressure.
6. In terms of the settlement dated 05.12.2025, out of the total
settlement amount for a sum of ₹7,00,000/-, an amount of ₹5,00,000/-
already stands paid to Respondent No. 2. Out of the balance amount of
₹2,00,000/-, ₹50,000/- is paid in cash and ₹1,50,000/- is paid by way
of Demand Draft No.008952, drawn on HDFC Bank, dated
11.03.2026 has been handed over to Respondent No. 2 in Court today.
It is stated that divorce between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.
2 has already been pronounced as per Muslim laws. It is also stated
that custody of the minor child will remain with Respondent No. 2.
7. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified
by the Investigating Officer.
8. Petitioner No. 1, who is father of the minor child, states that
rights of the minor child will not be affected in any manner.
9. Respondent No. 2, on being asked, states that she does not wish
to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR, and states
that she has no objection if the same are quashed.
10. Offences under Sections 406/506 of the IPC are compoundable,
whereas offences under Sections 498A/354 of the IPC and Sections
3/4 of the DP Act are non- compoundable.
11. 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 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)
12. 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)
13. Although allegations in respect of outraging of modesty have
been levelled against Petitioner No. 2 (father-in-law) and Petitioner
No. 5 (brother-in-law), it is stated that the matter essentially arose out
of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. As the complainant
does not wish to pursue the proceedings, the present case is unlikely to
result in conviction. Continuation of proceedings will only cause ill
will to fester between the parties.
14. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties
have amicably resolved their disputes, 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 opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
15. In view of the above, FIR No.311/2022 and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the legality of
the settlement or any right in relation to the custody of the minor
child.
17. It is also clarified that the legal rights of the minor child will not
be affected in any manner whatsoever by the present order.
18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 12, 2026
"SK"
