$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3885/2025 SH. ROSHAN LAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.S. Khan, Mr. M. Arshyan, Mr.

Akbar Kaleem and Ms. Shaziya, Advocates Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel with SI Kiran Yadav, PS-DBG Road CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 26.11.2025 The matter is taken up today as 25.11.2025 was declared as holiday on account of Guru Teg Bahadur’s Martyrdom Day.

CRL.M.A. 35068/2025

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 3885/2025

3. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 189/2024 under sections 376/377/328/506 IPC registered at D.B.G Road and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

4. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel for the State accepts notice.

5. The petitioner, as well as, respondent no. 2, who are present in Court, have been identified by Mr. M.S. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, by the Investigating Officer, SI Kiran Yadav, PS-DBG Road.

6. The brief facts of the case are that marriage between son of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 18.04.2017 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. However, on account of some temperamental issues certain disputes arose between the son of petitioner and his family members with respondent no.2. It is also the case of the prosecution that a complaint of mental and physical harassment at the hands of petitioner was lodged by the complainant, which led to the registration of present FIR.

7. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and arrived at a settlement, the terms whereof have been reduced in writing in the memorandum of understanding dated

04.09.2024, which is annexed as Annexure-P2 to the present petition.

8. In terms of the said settlement, son of petitioner and respondent no.2 decided to dissolve their marriage by filing a petition for divorce by way of mutual consent. Accordingly, son of petitioner and respondent no.2 have obtained a decree of divorce dated 19.11.2024.

9. It is also a term of the settlement between the parties that the petitioner and his family members shall pay a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to respondent no.2 in the manner as mentioned in the settlement. The remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is paid today electronically by way of RTGS bearing transaction ID No. NRTGS/BKIDR52025 112600521052/ROS.

10. On a query posed by the Court, the respondent no.2 states she has settled the matter with the petitioner. She submits that she does not wish to prosecute the criminal proceedings any further and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

11. Insofar as the offence under Section 377 as alleged in the FIR is concerned, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ‘Rifakat Ali & Ors Vs. State & Anr.’ [CRL.M.C. No. 599/2021, decided on 26.02.2021] after referring to three decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that an FIR under Section 377 IPC, though a heinous offence can be quashed if the same is invoked in a matrimonial dispute where the parties have decided to part ways and move ahead in their lives without acrimony against each other. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised even for an offence under Section 377 IPC on the ground that the dispute is private in nature.

The material part of the said decision reads as under:-

“….10. A perusal of the three judgments which shows that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the power under Section 482 CrPC should not be used for quashing heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or