$~84

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 6425/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27120/2025

RAJEEV @ RAJEEV KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Karn, Advocate

with petitioner in person through

VC.

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the

State.

Mr. Jeevesh Pratap Singh,

Advocate for Complainant.

SI Shankar, PS-Dwarka South.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”] (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 202/2017 dated 04.05.2017, registered at Police Station Dwarka South, Delhi, under Sections 354/354A/509/323/34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is married to the sister of respondent No. 2 since

10.03.2016, but they have lived separately since 18.03.2017.

3. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is the sister of the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is a

friend of petitioner No.1.

4. The allegation in the impugned FIR is that when the petitioner had accompanied her sister (ex-wife of petitioner No. 1) to the Crimes

Against Women Cell, the petitioners misbehaved with both, the complainant and her sister. Specifically, it is stated that, in the course of a scuffle, petitioner No. 2 caught the complainant from behind and hit her, and petitioner No. 1 pushed her on the chest.

5. The petitioners are present through video conference, and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is present in person and is identified by her learned counsel and IO.

6. The parties have entered into a settlement agreement dated 27.10.2022, with the intervention of the Counselling Cell, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

7. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

8. Although the chargesheet has been filed, and the matter is at the stage of evidence, the complainant’s statement has not yet been recorded. The complainant is present before the Court, and submits that the allegations were born out of a misunderstanding and arising out of the matrimonial differences between her sister and petitioner No. 1.

9. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and sister of respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court.

10. Another FIR No. 13/2018, registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, at the instance of wife of petitioner No. 1 [sister of respondent No. 2] against petitioner No. 1 and his family members against Sections 498A/406/506/509/323/34 of the IPC, has already been quashed by an order of this Court dated 20.05.2024 in CRL.M.C.3172/2023 [Rajeev @ Rajeev Kumar @ Ors. v. State & Anr.], on the basis of a settlement entered into between the parties on

27.10.2022.

11. 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.

12. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. has held as follows:

“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 hav