Mohd. Naushad Alam vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010166522026
CRL.M.C. 3031/2026
+
MOHD. NAUSHAD ALAM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Zaffar Abbas, Mr. A. Khan and
Mohd. Shahnwez, Advs.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yusuf and Ms. K. Ansari, Advs.
SI Ravinder, PS Paharganj.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
Exemption from filing certified copies of annexures)
Crl.M.A.12298/2026 (
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of in the above terms.
CRL.M.C. 3031/2026
3. The petitioner, via the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “ BNSS ”) [ pari
materia to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
“ CrPC ”], seeks quashing of FIR No. 305/2024, dated 13.06.2024, registered
at P.S. Pahar Ganj, Central (Delhi), under Sections 376/328 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis
of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached at between the petitioner
and respondent no. 2 (complainant). The same has been appended as
Annexure P-10 to the present petition.
CRL.M.C. 3031/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:24:22
4. It is noticed that in the aforesaid, serious allegations of rape have been
levelled. It is alleged that on 20.11.2023, the petitioner took the victim to
Hotel Klick International for lunch. The petitioner offered a cold drink to
respondent no. 2 (complainant), which she drank and was rendered
unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she found herself undressed. The
petitioner thereafter showed her photographs and videos, and blackmailed
respondent no. 2 (complainant) on that basis and continued to have a
physical relationship with her. When respondent no. 2 (complainant) became
pregnant, the petitioner asked to abort and, on her refusal, broke all contact
with her.
5. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard, and the record
has been perused. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter.
6. It is a settled legal position that the inherent power of this Court,
recognised under Section 528 of the BNSS ( pari materia to Section 482 of
the CrPC), to quash proceedings on settlement extends to non-
compoundable offences. The same has been affirmed by a three-judge bench
of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC
303 . However, the Supreme Court gave a word of caution that serious
offences of mental depravity, such as the offence alleged in the present case,
should not be ordinarily quashed. It was observed as under:
“ 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 have harmful
effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously
CRL.M.C. 3031/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:24:22
endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not
safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have
settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid
compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable
in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences
of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can
have no legal sanction at all.
However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen
out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such
like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the
wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim
have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the
fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High
Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied
that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of
the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each
case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category
can be prescribed. ”
(emphasis supplied)
7. The Court has accordingly considered the alleged acts and the
collective material at hand. Given the nature of the offence, the present
matter cannot be treated at par with a private dispute which can be settled
between the parties. The present case is not one of a consensual relationship
which has later soured, or of a promise to marry which is not kept. Here the
allegation is far more serious. The alleged settlement between the parties
does not persuade this Court to take a different view.
8. The wider interest in bringing to justice perpetrators of serious crimej
CRL.M.C. 3031/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:24:22
outweighs the request to end the proceedings on a private settlement. In
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“ 16. What follows from the discussion behind the purpose of
sentencing is that if a particular crime is to be treated as crime
against the society and/or heinous crime, then the deterrence
theory as a rationale for punishing the offender becomes more
relevant, to be applied in such cases. Therefore, in respect of such
offences which are treated against the society, it becomes the duty
of the State to punish the offender. Thus, even when there is a
settlement between the offender and the victim, their will would
not prevail as in such cases the matter is in public domain.
Society demands that the individual offender should be punished
in order to deter other effectively as it amounts to greatest good of
the greatest number of persons in a society.
It is in this context
that we have to understand the scheme/philosophy behind Section
307 of the Code. ”
(emphasis supplied)
9. In Daxaben v. State of Gujarat , (2022) 16 SCC 117 , it was held as
under:
“ 37. However, before exercising its power under Section 482CrPC
to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings,
the High Court, as observed above, has to be circumspect and have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or
serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a
compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the
victim. Crimes like murder, rape , burglary, dacoity and even
abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature.
Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can
prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is
serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against
society
.
*
39. In criminal jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is
only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint
CRL.M.C. 3031/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:24:22
is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a
matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to
ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the
State to prosecute offenders . In case of grave and serious non-
compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or
complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring
that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender.
An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a
non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous
nature, which impacts society
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Furthermore, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai
Aahir v. State of Gujarat , (2017) 9 SCC 641 , while formulating the general
guidelines for the Courts dealing with the question of quashing of FIR on
compromise, held as under:
“ 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
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
11. This Court in Aman Gupta v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi ,
2025:DHC:10626 , also noted:
“ 5. In the considered view of this Court, offences of the nature
alleged particularly those involving sexual offences involving
children cannot be nullified merely on the basis of settlements
between the parties. Such offences, in the true sense, cannot be
regarded as offences in personam and the same constitutes a
CRL.M.C. 3031/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:24:22
crime against the society at large. Offences of such nature cannot
be extinguished only at the convenience of the parties
or because
the victim, at a subsequent stage, decides to marry the culprit. Any
such compromise or marriage does not ipso facto efface the gravity
of the offence or wipe out the seriousness of the allegations. ”
(emphasis supplied)
12. It is pointed out by learned APP for the State that the statement of the
victim has already been recorded, and she has fully supported the case of the
prosecution.
13. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the
nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR on the basis
of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement.
14. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
OCTOBER 28, 2026/ cl/vk SACHIN DATTA, J
CRL.M.C. 3031/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:24:22