Deepak Raikwar vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 13.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010307002026
CRL.M.C. 4952/2026 & CRL. M.A. 20759/2026
+
DEEPAK RAIKWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Mittal, Ms. Sujata, Mr.
Harish Kumar, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla (APP) along with
Mr. Mayank Chaudhary, Mr. Mohd.
Naved, Advs.
SI Akansha P.S. K.N.K. Marg.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, “BNSS”)
seeking quashing of FIR No. 0139/2020 dated 09.05.2020, registered at P.S.
K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi, under Sections 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”). It is submitted that a settlement has been
arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent no.2/ complainant.
2. The allegation in the FIR is that for about 2 months in 2020 the
petitioner made repeated phone calls to the respondent no.2, a married
woman, from different telephone numbers, teased her, demanded that she
establish physical relations with him, and threatened that if she did not do so
he would kill her and her husband and would rape her.
CRL.M.C. 4952/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:35:04
3. It is averred by the petitioner that he was arrested on 13.05.2020 and
thereafter released on bail by the learned trial Court.
4. It is pointed out that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/
Settlement Agreement dated 02.06.2026 has been entered into between the
parties. It is stated that the parties are related to each other and were on
family visiting terms, and that the dispute arose out of a heated exchange
and temperamental differences between them.
5. The respondent no.2/complainant has filed a ‘no objection’ affidavit.
The same reads as under:-
CRL.M.C. 4952/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:35:04
6. The parties are identified by the concerned I.O. who is present in
Court today.
7. The respondent no.2/ complainant submits that she has settled the
matter voluntarily based on her own volition and without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence.
8. The legal position is well settled that normally offences involving
allegations of Section 354 IPC are normally outside the purview of cases
which are permitted to be privately settled. However, there are some
peculiar facts of the present case viz. (i) the allegations on phone calls or
verbal threats without any physical assault; (ii) the parties are related to each
other; (iii) more than 06 years have passed since the registration of the FIR;
and (iv) the respondent no.2, a principal witness, has settled and does not
wish to proceed.
9. In the circumstances, continuing with the trial would be futile.
10. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10
SCC 303 , has made the following observations qua the inherent powers of
this Court to quash an FIR on compromise:
“ 54. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in
different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of
opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power
under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent
abuse of the process of any court, or (ii) to secure the ends of
justice, is a sine qua non
.
*
56. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the
High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to
provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482
. No precise and inflexible guidelines can
also be provided.
*
CRL.M.C. 4952/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:35:04
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 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)
11. It would be worthwhile to refer to the Supreme Court’s decision in
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , wherein the Court
remarked:
CRL.M.C. 4952/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:35:04
“ 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing
the criminal cases
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
12. This Court in Veer Singh v. State NCT of Delhi , Crl. M.C.
on 25.08.2025, while quashing the FIR registered under the
5897/2025
offences of like nature, made the following noteworthy observations:
“ 8. Although the offence under Section 354/354-B of IPC cannot be
treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and they touch upon public
concerns rather than being confined to individual grievances, the
Court must also account for the practical realities of securing a
conviction in the present case. The Supreme Court has consistently
held that in cases where the complainant has entered into a
voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no longer inclined to
support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction
becomes exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the
prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no
worthwhile public interest. The Complainant in the present case has
categorically expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter
further and has confirmed the settlement as voluntary and devoid of
any coercion. Given this background, the continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to an empty formality, adding to the
burden of the justice system and consuming public resources
unnecessarily
. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and in
view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this
Court finds the present case to be an appropriate one for exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of
justice. ”
(emphasis supplied)
13. It must also be noted that this Court in Jazib Jafri v. State (NCT of
Delhi) , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5889 and Vimalesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) ,
2026 SCC OnLine Del 4047 quashed an FIR registered under Section 354D
CRL.M.C. 4952/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:35:04
of the IPC on the basis of a compromise.
14. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the dicta laid down by
the Supreme Court , there is no impediment in acceding to the request of the
parties for quashing of the aforementioned FIR.
15. Accordingly, FIR No. 0139/2020 dated 09.05.2020, registered at P.S.
K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi, under Sections 354-D and 506 of the IPC, 1860 and
all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. The petitioner shall,
however, bear the costs of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee, on account of the public time and
resources expended in the adjudication of the present proceedings. Proof of
payment shall be filed in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from
today.
16. The petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of in the
above terms.
OCTOBER 13, 2026/ uk,vk,sd SACHIN DATTA, J
CRL.M.C. 4952/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:35:04