Nadeem Ahmad And Ors vs State Nct Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 27.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010511892026
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 & CRL.M.A. 33390/2026
+
NADEEM AHMAD AND ORS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ahmad Waseem, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP) for the State.
SI Arvind Kumar (P.S. Jafrabad)
Mr. Sikander Ali, Mr. Javed Khan,
Advs. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)
(corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(“CrPC”)), seeking quashing of FIR No. 0347/2020 dated 12.08.2020,
registered at Police Station Jafrabad, North East District, Delhi, under
Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)
(corresponding to Sections 85, 316(2), 351(2) and (3), and 3(5),
respectively, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)) read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“DP Act”), together with all
proceedings emanating therefrom. The respondent no.2 is the complainant
and the petitioner no.1 is her husband, whereas petitioner nos.2 to 5 are,
respectively, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 1 of 16
law.
2. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 were married on
26.03.2015 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies at Delhi and one son,
namely Master Ibrahim, was born out of the said wedlock. The parties are
stated to be living separately since 01.12.2018. The father of the petitioner
no.1, namely Sh. Naeem Ahmad (who was also named in the aforesaid FIR),
passed away on 27.04.2022, and the proceedings qua him stood dropped.
3. The respondent no.2 is present in Court and submits that she has
entered into the settlement agreement out of her own free will and without
undue influence or coercion. The agreement was entered into under the aegis
of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on 12.02.2025.
The same reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 9 of 16
4. In terms of the said settlement, the petitioner no.1 agreed to pay a sum
of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent no.2, comprising Rs.3,50,000/- towards
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 10 of 16
full and final settlement of her claims on account of maintenance (past,
present and future), jewellery, dowry articles, permanent alimony, iddat
expenses and mehar, and Rs.3,50,000/- towards the welfare and maintenance
of the minor child. It was further agreed that the parties would dissolve their
marriage by mutual consent under Muslim Personal Law; that the
respondent no.2 would cooperate in the quashing of the FIR qua all the
persons named therein, and that the custody of the minor child would remain
with the respondent no.2, with visitation rights to the petitioner no.1.
5. In terms of the settlement, the marriage between petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2 stands dissolved with effect from 21.04.2025, pursuant to a
deed of divorce by mutual consent executed between them in accordance
with Muslim Personal Law.
6. It also transpires that the settlement has been acted upon. Out of the
settlement amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- has already
been paid to the respondent no.2. A bank draft for the balance sum of Rs.
2,50,000/- has been handed over to her during the course of the hearing
today. The respondent no.2 confirms receipt of the said amount. The
petitioners and the respondent no.2 have been identified by the concerned
I.O. Learned APP for the State has no serious objection to the present
petition.
7. The respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit dated 01.10.2026,
stating that she has settled all her claims and disputes with the petitioners
mutually and amicably, without any force, coercion, pressure or fraud, and
that she has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR. The
petitioners and the respondent no.2 undertake to remain bound by the terms
of the settlement dated 12.02.2025.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 11 of 16
8. This Court is conscious that the offences under Section 498A of the
IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act are non-compoundable, whereas the
offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable by the owner of the
property with the permission of the Court, and the offence under Section 506
of the IPC is compoundable by the person intimidated. However, the power
of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the
CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of
compounding conferred on a criminal court, and is not circumscribed by it.
9. 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 has
been held that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimony or family
disputes, where the wrong is private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute, stand on a different footing for the
purposes of quashing. The relevant extract reads 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 12 of 16
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 .”
10. The said principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it has been held as
under:
“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:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where
the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 13 of 16
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.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged
to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
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.
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.”
11. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 14 of 16
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.”
12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the
impugned FIR arises out of a matrimonial relationship and the wrong
complained of is essentially private in nature; the offences alleged do not
fall within the category of heinous and serious offences of mental depravity,
or offences such as murder, rape or dacoity. The parties have amicably
resolved all their disputes in terms of the settlement dated 12.02.2025; the
marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 stands
dissolved; the entire settlement amount of Rs.7,00,000/- stands paid; the
other inter se proceedings between the parties stand withdrawn or disposed
of; and the respondent no.2, who is present in Court, has affirmed the
settlement, confirmed receipt of the settled amount and filed an affidavit of
no objection. The trial has not progressed beyond the stage of framing of
charge and no prosecution witness has been examined. In these
circumstances, and given that the respondent no.2 is no longer willing to
support the prosecution, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak,
and the continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility and
would serve no useful purpose.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 15 of 16
13. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and
considering the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid
judgments, there is no impediment in allowing the present petition.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 0347/2020 dated
12.08.2020 registered at P.S. Jafrabad, Delhi, under Sections 498A/ 406/
506/ 34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua all the petitioners,
stands quashed.
14. The present petition, along with the pending application, is disposed
of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/ uk,sd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:31:25
CRL.M.C. 8003/2026 Page 16 of 16