Prateek Raj Mathur and Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr

Delhi High Court · 20 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11660
Ravinder Dudeja
CRL MC 8704/2025
2025:DHC:11660
criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 217/2024 and all proceedings based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

Full Text
Translation output
CRL MC 8704/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.12.2025 ,,,,,,,,,, CRL.M.C. 8704/2025
PRATEEK RAJ MATHUR AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anirudh Narang, Adv. Petitioners are present through vc.
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP
WITH
SI Ayushi Sharma, P.S.
R.K.Puram.
R-2 is present through vc.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 217/2024, dated 02.08.2024, registered at P.S RK Puram, Delhi under Sections 354/354A/323/342/501/509 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

2. The Factual matrix giving rise to the instant complaint is that the complainant, separated from her husband (petitioner No.1) since August 2023, was lured to Hyatt Regency on 04.06.2024 by Juan Petros Markau, who had falsely posed himself as a UNICEF employee met the complainant at April expo under pretext of finalizing a business deal. Petitioner No. 1 who had booked the room and arrived at the hotel room with Chinu and one another wherein the accused persons assaulted her, confined her, and outraged her modesty. The accused persons filmed her for blackmailing her later for defaming her family. Hotel CCTV and PCR police confirmed conspiracy and FIR 217/2024 under Sections354/354A/323/342/501/509 IPC registered at PS RK Puram at the instance of respondent No. 2. Chargesheet has since been filed under Section 354/354A/323/342/501/509/120B/34 IPC.

3. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes before the Delhi State Legal Service Authority and the terms of settlement were written in the form of a Settlement Agreement/Compromise dated 20.11.2024. It is submitted that the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 have unconditionally settled their disputes as per the schedule in the settlement. Copy of the Settlement Agreement dated 20.11.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-3.

4. Parties have entered their appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Ayushi Sharma, from P.S. R.K.Puram.

5. Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and respondent no.2 has no objection if the FIR No. 217/2024 is quashed against all the Petitioners. She further submits that in terms of settlement, she has obtained divorce from petitioner no.1 on 04.08.2025 by mutual consent.

6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 217/2024 is quashed.

7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

8. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,

9. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

10. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR NO. 217/2024, dated 02.08.2024, registered at P.S RK Puram, Delhi under Sections 354/354A/323/342/501/509 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed subject to petitioners depositing cost of Rs. 25,000/- each with DHCBA Cost Account bearing no. 15530110179338.

11. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.