Pradip Saha And Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No. DLHC010532822026
Date of Decision : 04.11.2026
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 & Crl.M.A.34708/2026
+
PRADIP SAHA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dilawar Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
along with SI Sweta, PS New Ashok
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( pari materia to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR
No. 542/2020, dated 19.12.2020, registered at P.S. New Ashok Nagar, East
(Delhi), under Sections 376/498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter “ IPC ”), and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis
of Compromise-cum-Settlement Deed, dated 10.06.2025, entered into
between the parties. The same has been appended as Annexure-C to the
present petition.
2. The factual conspectus of the case is that petitioner no. 3 (husband)
and respondent no. 2 (wife/complainant) married on 11.03.2020 according
to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Vishwas Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi – 110032. Apart from the allegations of cruelty, respondent
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 1 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02
no. 1 (complainant) in the aforesaid FIR makes serious allegations of rape,
specifically against petitioner no. 1 (father-in-law). However, Ld. ASJ (SC
RC)-02, Karardooma Court, East Delhi, vide order dated 01.10.2024,
discharged all the accused from Sections 376/506 of the IPC. Accordingly,
the criminal proceedings that are pending against the petitioners are under
Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. It is also noted that petitioner no. 3 (husband) and respondent no. 2
(wife) have been living separately since 17.11.2020. Further, there is no
child out of wedlock. As of today, the marriage between petitioner no. 3
(husband) and respondent no. 2 (wife) stands dissolved by decree by mutual
consent, dated 07.08.2025, passed by Ld. Principal Judge-Family Court,
Karardooma Court, East Delhi, in HMA No. 1007/2025.
4. The aforesaid Compromise-cum-Settlement Deed (10.06.2025), by
way of which the parties have resolved their disputes, read as follows:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 2 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 3 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02
5. The dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature. The
marriage stands resolved by way of mutual consent. The petitioners
(husband and in-laws) and respondent no. 2 (complainant/wife) are present
in Court today and have been identified by the concerned Investigating
Officer (IO).
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 4 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02
6. Respondent no. 2 (complainant/wife) affirms the factum of the
aforesaid Compromise-cum-Settlement Deed and reiterates that she is no
longer desirous of pursuing the matter. It is also affirmed by her that the
aforesaid settlement has been arrived at of her own free will and volition
without any undue influence, coercion or pressure.
7. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein 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 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 5 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02
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)
8. The principles established in Gian Singh (supra) were further
crystallised in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 .
Paragraph 29 of the same reads as follows:
“ 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down
the following principles by which the High Court would be guided
in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties
and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing
to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings:
*
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the
guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.
*
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character , particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed
when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among
themselves
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 6 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02
9. Specifically in the context of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme
Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi , (2013) 4 SCC 58 ,
has held as under:
“ 14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of
the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675:
2003 SCC (Cri) 848], this Court has upheld the powers of the High
Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where
dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into
between the parties who are willing to settle their differences
amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly
applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have
quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement
arrived at.
15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same
are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-
compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the
Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably
and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of
securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a
bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the
subsequent criminal proceedings.
”
(emphasis supplied)
10. This Court also takes note of the affidavits filed by the petitioner,
wherein it is stated that not even one of the fifteen (15) prosecution
witnesses has been examined. The same has been reproduced hereinbelow:
11. Concerning this, the following observation of Narinder Singh (supra)
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 7 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02
can be taken note of:
“ 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. Lastly, it would be apposite to make a reference to the decision of the
apex Court in Navneesh Aggarwal v. State of Haryana , 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1680 , wherein the Court observed as under:
“ 14. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that
where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of
divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective
lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship
ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment . In
the cases of Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal
No. 1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”) and Arun Jain v.
State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9178
of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”), this Court, while
exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial
discord against the husband. The Court took note of the fact that
the couple therein had divorced and held that in such a situation,
to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of
the process of law
. The reasoning adopted therein applies with
equal force to the facts of the present case. … ”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no impediment in
allowing the present petition. Accordingly, in view of the joint request of the
parties, and considering the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the
present petition is allowed, consequently FIR No. 542/2020, dated
19.12.2020, registered at P.S. New Ashok Nagar, East (Delhi), under
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 8 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02
Sections 376/498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
“ IPC ”), and all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua all the petitioners,
stand quashed.
14. The present petition, along with the pending application, stands
disposed of in the above terms.
15. Since considerable judicial time has been consumed pursuant to
registration of the FIR, the petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs. 15,000/-
(cumulatively) to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
(DHCLSC). Learned counsel for the petitioners accedes to the same and
submits that the same shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from
today. Proof of deposit shall be filed in the Registry of this Court.
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/ at/vk
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8277/2026 Page 9 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:23:02