Deep Singh Rawat And Ors vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr

$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of Decision: 03 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010328532024

+ CRL.M.C. 4427/2024 & CRL.M.A. 16798/2024

DEEP SINGH RAWAT AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Nusrat Hassan with Ms. Vartika
Tyagi and Mr. Manish Kumar Singh,
Advocates with Petitioner Nos.1 and 4
in person and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3
through V.C.
versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the
State with SI Ashok Singh Chauhan,
PS Nihal Vihar.
Mr. Varun Kashyap, Advocate for
respondent No.2 with respondent No.2
in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No.240/2017 dated
15.05.2017, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, for commission of
offences under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between
the parties.
2. As per the case of prosecution, respondent No.2 was in love with
petitioner No.1 herein and they got married to each other on 10.03.2016.
However, thereafter, she suspected and apprehended that her husband was
already married and when she confronted him in this regard, he threatened her
and assaulted her. She also made allegations against the other relatives of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4427/2024 1
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:29:08

her husband and on the basis of her report, FIR was registered for committing
offences under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC. However, during investigation,
when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she made further
allegations against her husband claiming that she was sexually assaulted by
him and that he had also committed unnatural sex with her. This resulted in
addition of aggravated penal sections under Sections 376/377/494 IPC.
3. Quashing is being sought for the reason that the matter has now been
amicably settled and respondent No.2 is no longer interested in pursuing the
abovesaid FIR.
4. When the present matter was taken up by the learned predecessor
Bench on 28.10.2024, the complainant had appeared before this Court and
had reiterated that she did not want to pursue any proceedings arising out of
the abovesaid FIR and, resultantly, learned Trial Court was directed not to
proceed further with the matter. Such interim order continues to be in
operation.
5. Respondent No. 2 is present in person and she has been duly identified
by her counsel as well as by Investigating Officer.
6. When asked, she reiterated the terms of settlement, as recorded in
Settlement Deed dated 13.05.2024. She submits that she has already moved
on in her life and has got lawfully married two years back. She also submits
that she has a child from such marriage and since she has already accepted the
apology of the petitioners, she is no longer interested in pursuing with the
abovesaid FIR and would have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
She also submits that as per the settlement, she is giving up her any right, title
or interest in any of the movable properties of the petitioners and they have
agreed to part ways in a graceful manner. She also submits that she had filed a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4427/2024 2
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:29:08

petition seeking maintenance and had also filed an Execution Petition.
However, in view of the settlement, these petitions have already been
withdrawn. She asserts that she has entered into the abovesaid settlement out
of her own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner
whatsoever.
7. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State submits that allegations made by her in
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are somewhat serious in nature and,
therefore, learned Trial Court should be asked to continue with the trial.

8. The abovesaid FIR is of the year 2017. Respondent No.2 has now
remarried and has moved on in her life.
9. In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC
466, the Apex Court observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable
cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is
satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the
proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak.
Reference be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2012) 10 SCC
303.
10. It will also be useful to make reference to one recent pronouncement of
the Apex Court i.e. Madhukar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1415. The abovesaid case also relates to offence under Section
376 IPC and, when an application was moved by the parties seeking quashing
of the proceedings on the basis of settlement, such petition was dismissed by
the jurisdictional High Court which compelled the parties to approach
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed as under in para 6:-
“6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is
undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of
proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4427/2024 3
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:29:08

the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However,
the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of
justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with
reference to the facts of each case.”

11. Resultantly, in the abovesaid case, while taking note of the
submission of the victim wherein she had submitted that she had settled in her
personal life and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb
her peace and stability, finding complete consistency in her such stance, and
noticing the fact that the continuation of the trial would not serve any
meaningful purpose and would rather prolong distress for all concerned,
especially the complainant, and the burden of the Courts, without the
likelihood of a productive outcome, the appeals were allowed and the
criminal proceedings were quashed.
12. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with
criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, When even the
complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners.
13. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , it is deemed
appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
14. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No.240/2017 dated
15.05.2017, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, for commission of
offences under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC , along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed. Original affidavits and
MoU of the parties, copies of which have been placed on record in the present
proceedings, shall be submitted before the learned Trial Court within four
weeks from today, so that these become part of Trial Court Record.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4427/2024 4
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:29:08

15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
16. Pending application also stands disposed of.


(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2026/st/sk
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 4427/2024 5
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:29:08