Rohan Rawlley & Ors. vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

$~96
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 13 October, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010497222026
+ CRL.M.C. 7783/2026, CRL.M.A. 32424/2026
ROHAN RAWLLEY & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arman Sharma with Ms. Shimpy
Sharma, Mr. Vikas Maini, Mr. Ankit
Banati, Mr. Sanchit Sehgal, Ms.
Kritika and Mr. Armaan, Advocates.
(M): 9654984817

versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
the State.
(M): 9871349009
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Krishna Kumar with Mr. B.
Bhardwaj, Advocates for respondent
no. 2.
(M): 9193954267
Email: [email protected]
SI Roveine H., PS Malviya Nagar.
(M): 9612173306
Email: [email protected]

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 482 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 1 of 5

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking quashing of the
th
First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 568/2022 dated 06
September, 2022, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Malviya Nagar, South
District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/420/468/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC”), along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom,
including, the proceedings in Cr Cases 3231/2023 , pending before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court)-03, Saket Courts, South
District, Delhi.
2. A Chargesheet has been filed by the concerned Investigating Officer
(“IO”) in respect of the aforesaid FIR before the Trial Court.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (“APP”) appearing for the State, i.e., respondent no. 1, as well as
by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
4. The petitioners are present before this Court through Video
Conferencing (“VC”), while respondent no. 2 is present in person. The
parties are duly identified by their respective counsel as well as the IO, who
is also present before this Court.
5. The captioned petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the
parties.
6. As per the material on record, the following facts are relevant for
adjudication of the captioned petition:
6.1. The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was
th
solemnized on 26 November, 2015, however, due to temperamental
th
differences and incompatibility, they started living separately from 09
March, 2022.
6.2. FIR No. 568/2022 came to be registered after a complaint was made
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 2 of 5

by respondent no. 2 to the Crime Against Women (“CAW”) Cell, Delhi,
against the petitioner no. 1 and his family members, namely, petitioner no. 2
who was her father-in-law and petitioner no. 3 who was her mother-in-law.
6.3. Respondent no. 2 has alleged, inter alia , that the petitioners harassed
and threatened her on multiple occasions in connection with demands for
dowry. She has further alleged that they retained her jewellery and other
belongings and refused to return them.
7. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and respondent no. 2
jointly submit that the parties have arrived at a settlement and do not wish to
pursue the present matter any further.
th
8. The parties have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 18 May,
2026, before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre
(“DHCMCC”), whereby, the petitioners undertook to pay a total sum of Rs.
23,00,000/- to respondent no. 2 as full and final settlement towards all her
claims for maintenance, permanent alimony, and other claims.
9. Of the aforesaid amount, the final instalment of Rs. 10,00,000/- is
payable to respondent no. 2 at the time of quashing of the present FIR.
10. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has handed
over a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to respondent no. 2,
which has duly been accepted by her.
11. This Court has interacted with respondent no. 2, who affirms that the
said Settlement Agreement has been arrived at out of her own free will,
without any coercion or force from any quarter.
12. She further confirms that she has received the full and final amount in
terms of the Settlement Agreement and that she does not wish to pursue the
matter any further.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 3 of 5

13. This Court is also informed that the marriage between petitioner no. 1
and respondent no. 2 already stands dissolved, as they have obtained a
th
decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 10 September, 2026, passed by
the Family Court-02, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi, in HMA
1600/2026.
14. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the present FIR.
15. Learned APP appearing for the State submits that the State has no
objection to the present petition.
16. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
notes that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the present
matter.
17. It is well settled that High Courts may exercise their inherent power
under Section 528 of the BNSS, to quash criminal proceedings with respect
to non-compoundable offences, if the concerned parties have arrived at a
compromise or settlement, and particularly when no overarching public
interest is adversely affected by quashing the same. The ultimate guiding
factors in such cases must be to secure the ends of justice and prevent the
abuse of the process of law.
18. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Versus Babita Raghuvanshi
and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 , the Supreme Court has held that the High
Courts are empowered to quash an FIR in cases pertaining to matrimonial
disputes in order to foster genuine settlements, even when the offences
involved are non-compoundable in nature. The relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 4 of 5

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.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present
th
case, FIR No. 568/2022 dated 06 September, 2022, registered at PS
Malviya Nagar, South District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/420/468/34
of the IPC, and all the proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
20. The present petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of, in the
aforesaid terms.
21. The pending application also stands disposed of.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026
c


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 5 of 5