Rahul Aliyas Rahul Dev & Ors. vs The State & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No.DLHC010526022026
Date of Decision : 02.11.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 8183/2026
RAHUL ALIYAS RAHUL DEV & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ram Kishan, Mr. Rahul, Mr. V.
Swamy and Ms. Sharda, Advs.
versus
THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mohd. Naved and Mr.
Mayank Chaudhary, Advs.
Mr. Yogish Sharma, Adv.
SI Sumit, PS Jagat Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
seeking waiver / exemption from removal of the
Crl.M.A.34313/2026 (
registry objection regarding the settlement deed)

1. The petitioner states that the settlement was recorded before the
Counselling Cell, Family Court, Karkardooma, Shahdara District, Delhi and
that no other settlement deed exists.
2. Taking on record this statement of fact, the application stands
disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 8183/2026
3. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.436/2023 dated 03.07.2023,
filed under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC),
registered at P.S. Jagat Puri.
4. The petitioner no.1 is the erstwhile husband of the respondent no.2 /
complainant. The petitioner no.2 is the erstwhile father-in-law of the

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8183/2026 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:09:07

respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.3 is the erstwhile mother-in-law of the
respondent no.2.
5. The marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent
no.2/complainant was solemnized on 03.12.2019. The parties have a minor
son from the said marriage, who lives with the respondent no.2.
6. On 20.03.2025, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner
no.1 and respondent no.2 before the Counselling Cell, Family Court,
Karkardooma, Shahadara District, Delhi. The same has been appended as
Annexure-P3 to the present petition, and reads as under:


Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8183/2026 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:09:07

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8183/2026 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:09:07

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8183/2026 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:09:07

7. The respondent no.2, who is present in person, affirms the factum of
the aforesaid settlement. She reiterates that the same was arrived at out of
her own free will and volition and without any undue influence or pressure.
8. It is further pointed out that, in terms of the settlement deed, out of
Rs.23,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- has already been received by the
respondent no.2. A bank draft of the remaining amount viz Rs.3,00,000/- has
been handed over to the respondent no.2 during the course of hearing. She
confirms receipt thereof.
9. The concerned IO has identified the respondent no.2 and also the
petitioners.
10. The dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial and the
settlement was reached before the Counselling Cell, learned Family Court,
Karkardooma Courts.
11. The said settlement has also been acted upon by the parties; the

requisite amount has been paid in terms thereof and a decree of divorce has
also been passed.
12. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme
Court has held as under:
“ 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised
in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR
may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8183/2026 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:09:07

Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such
like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In
this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding 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 the 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 proceeding.”
13. In the circumstances, and in terms of the dicta laid down by the
Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), there is no impediment to allowing
the present petition.
14. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR No. 436/2023 and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, stands quashed.
15. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/ cl

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8183/2026 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:09:07