Delhi High Court – Orders
Rishab Garg & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 24 July, 2025
$~13 & 54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
13
+ CRL.M.C. 4400/2025
RISHAB GARG & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harsh Sinha, Mr.
Sachin Katyal & Ms.
Ruchika, Advs. with
petitioners in person
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP
for the State
Inspector Pawan Kumar,
Inspector Subhash & SI
Sanjay Kumar, PS-
Dwarka North
Mr. Jitender Solanki, Mr.
Sushil Ratan, Mr. Praveen
Sehrawat, Mr. Abhishek
Gahlot & Mr. Ritik
Bansal, Advs. for R2 with
R2 in person
54
+ CRL.M.C. 4674/2025
MS. LAVI GOYAL @ LAVI GARG
& ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jitender Solanki, Mr.
Sushil Ratan, Mr. Praveen
Sehrawat, Mr. Abhishek
Gahlot & Mr. Hitesh
Shastri, Advs. with
petitioners in person
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP
for the State
Inspector Pawan Kumar,
Inspector Subhash & SI
Sanjay Kumar, PS-
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 Page 1 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2025 at 21:38:54
Dwarka North
Mr. Harsh Sinha, Mr.
Sachin Katyal & Ms.
Ruchika, Advs. for R2
with R2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 24.07.2025
CRL.M.A. 19128/2025 (for exemption) in CRL.M.C.
4400/2025
CRL.M.A. 20303/2025 (for exemption) in CRL.M.C.
4674/2025
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. These applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025
3. The present petitions are filed seeking quashing of cross-
FIRs, being, FIR No. 524/2020 dated 14.10.2020 for offences
punishable under Sections 323/354(A)/506/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘) and FIR No. 401/2022 dated 24.06.2022 for
offences punishable under Sections 323/451/427/341/506/380/34
of the IPC, both registered at Police Station Dwarka North,
including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
4. FIR No. 524/2020 in CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 was registered
on the complaint made by Respondent No. 2 alleging that from
the time she got married to Petitioner No. 1, she was being
physically assaulted by Petitioner No. 1 and his family members,
being Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioners used to beat
Respondent No. 2 and even tried to kill her by strangulating her
with a dupatta. Repeated incidents of such nature led to
registration of FIR No. 524/2020.
5. FIR No. 401/2022 in CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 was registered
on the complaint made by Respondent No.2 alleging that the
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 Page 2 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2025 at 21:38:54
petitioners trespassed the house of Respondent No. 2 and a
scuffle took place in which the petitioners threatened and
assaulted Respondent No. 2.
6. Chargesheet in FIR No. 524/2020 has been filed under
Sections 323/354/354(B)/506/498A/34 of the IPC and
chargesheet in FIR No. 401/2022 has been filed under Sections
323/452/380/427/341/506 of the IPC.
7. Petitioner No. 1/ Rishab Garg (in CRL.M.C. 4400/2025)
and Respondent No. 2 (in CRL.M.C. 4400/2025) got married on
25.02.2020 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. A child was born
out of the said wedlock.
8. The learned counsel for the parties submits that due to the
ongoing matrimonial disputes between Petitioner No. 1/ Rishab
Garg (in CRL.M.C. 4400/2025) and Respondent No. 2 (in
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025), some misunderstandings cropped up
among the parties and an altercation took place. They submit that
the dispute has since been resolved.
9. It is also submitted that Petitioner No. 1/ Rishab Garg (in
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025) and Respondent No. 2 (in CRL.M.C.
4400/2025) have obtained a decree of divorce.
10. The present petitions are filed on the ground that the
matters are amicably settled between the parties before Mediation
Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by way of the Memorandum
of Understanding/ Compromise Deed dated 31.10.2023 on their
own free will, without any threat, force, coercion,
misrepresentation, or influences.
11. The petitioners and complainants in both the cases are
present in Court and have been duly identified by the
Investigating Officer.
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 Page 3 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2025 at 21:38:54
12. The petitioners unconditionally apologize for their
behaviour and undertake not to indulge into any such activity in
future. The parties are bound to the said undertaking.
13. The complainants, in the respective cases, on being asked,
state that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out
of the respective FIRs registered by them, and they have no
objection if the proceedings are quashed.
14. They submit that they have no remaining grievance and
wish to live their lives peacefully in the future.
15. Offences under Sections 323/341/427/451/506/509 of the
IPC are compoundable in nature whereas offence under Sections
354/354(B)/498A/452/380 of the IPC are non-compoundable in
nature.
16. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are non-
compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between
the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while
accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case
of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6
SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed 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 underCRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 Page 4 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2025 at 21:38:54
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.
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 Page 5 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2025 at 21:38:54
of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had observed as under :-
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in
the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of
the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process
of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in
the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High
Court to quash a first information report or a
criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an
offence. While compounding an offence, the power
of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal
proceeding or complaint should be quashed in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the
High Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the inherent
power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court
has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be
exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or
first information report should be quashed on the
ground that the offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no exhaustive
elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section
482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute
has been settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 Page 6 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2025 at 21:38:54
the victim or the family of the victim have settled
the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not
private in nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the trial in
such cases is founded on the overriding element
of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there
may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a civil
dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise
from commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise
between the disputants, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set
out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above.
Economic offences involving the financial and
economic well-being of the State have implications
which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court would
be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a
financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of upon the
financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In the present matters, the respective complainants have
stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out
of the respective FIRs. In the peculiar circumstances of these
cases, it is unlikely that the present FIRs will result in conviction
when the victims do not wish to pursue the cases. In such
circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 Page 7 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2025 at 21:38:54
undue harassment and heartburn.
19. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the
parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels
that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute
alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case
to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
20. In view of the above, FIR Nos. 524/2020 and 401/2022
and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
21. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the
legality of the settlement or any right in relation to the custody of
the minor child.
22. It is also clarified that the legal rights of the minor child
will not be affected, in any manner, whatsoever by the present
order.
23. The present petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
24. A copy of the order be placed in both the matters
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 24, 2025
“SS”
CRL.M.C. 4400/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4674/2025 Page 8 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2025 at 21:38:54