Mohd Abid Saifi & Anr. vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
%
#
CNR No. DLHC010518042026

CRL.M.C. 8077/2026
+
MOHD ABID SAIFI & ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Kumar, Adv. (through v/c)
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mohd. Naved and Mr.
Mayank Chaudhary, Advs.
SI Rahul Kumar, PS NFC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( Oral )
CRL.M.A. 33832/2026 -EX(FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNX.)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 8077/2026
3. The petitioner, via the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeks quashing of FIR No.
295/2025, dated 26.07.2025, registered at P.S. New Friends Colony, South-
East (Delhi), under Sections 118(1)/351(2)/324(2)/3(5), and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of the
Settlement Agreement, dated 10 March 2026, entered into between the
parties. The same has been appended as Annexure P-2 to the present
CRL.M.C. 8077/2026 Page 1 of 5



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
12:24:34

petition.
4. The factual conspectus is that petitioner no. 1 (husband) was earlier
married to respondent no. 2 (wife) and there is no child through the
marriage. The allegation in the FIR is that on 25.07.2025, at about 04:00
P.M., petitioner no. 1 (husband) and the petitioner no. 2 (husband’s friend)
stopped the car in which the respondent no. 2 (wife) was travelling along
with respondent no. 3 (wife’s father). The petitioners allegedly broke the car
window and assaulted respondent no. 3 (wife’s father) and inflicted injuries
on respondent no. 2 (wife).
5. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1 (husband) and respondent no. 2
(wife) have been living separately for a substantial period and the marriage
between them stands dissolved. The aforesaid Settlement Agreement records
that petitioner no. 1 (husband) shall pay Rs. 5,00,000 to respondent no. 2
(wife) towards mahr, iddat, and maintenance. To that effect, Clause 6 of the
Agreement is reproduced hereinbelow:

6. A sum of Rs. 2,50,000 (Bank Draft No. 000264) has already been
paid, and a bank draft amounting to Rs. 2,50,000 (for the remaining period)
has been handed over to the respondent no. 2 (wife) during the course of
CRL.M.C. 8077/2026 Page 2 of 5



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
12:24:34

hearing. Respondent no. 2 (wife) confirms the receipt thereof. She also
submits that she has settled the matter of her free will and without any undue
influence or pressure.
7. The parties have been duly identified by the concerned Investigating
Officer (IO).
8. 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 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
CRL.M.C. 8077/2026 Page 3 of 5



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
12:24:34

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)
9. 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:
“ 29.4. 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)
10. 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], 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
CRL.M.C. 8077/2026 Page 4 of 5



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
12:24:34

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)
11. In the circumstances, the settlement agreement between the parties
provides a cogent basis for quashing the aforementioned FIR. The
prosecution arises out of private matrimonial disputes, which the parties
have voluntarily resolved. The performance of the financial and other
settlement obligations, together with the respondents’ consent, supports the
conclusion that the continuation of the prosecution would serve no fruitful
purpose.
12. 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 and FIR No. 295/2025, dated 26.07.2025, registered at
P.S. New Friends Colony, South-East (Delhi), under Sections
118(1)/351(2)/324(2)/3(5), together with all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, qua all the petitioners, stands quashed.
13. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ uk/vk


CRL.M.C. 8077/2026 Page 5 of 5



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
12:24:34