Babu Lal Kumar & ORS. v. The State NCT Of Delhi And ANR

$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BABU LAL KUMAR & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Jai Subhash Thakur, Advocate alongwith Petitioner in Person.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.

Mr Dinesh Kumar Madesiya and Mr. Sonu Jha, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026 1.

Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr Dinesh Kumar Madesiya, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2.

The petitioners have filed this petition 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. 991/2022 dated 14.10.2022, lodged at Police Station Model Town, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], on the ground of settlement. 3.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 02.05.2019. One child was born from the wedlock on 30.06.2021. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

The impugned FIR was registered on 14.10.2022, at the instance of respondent No. 2, against five accused persons being her husband, parents-in-law, and sisters-in-law. It is stated therein that respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint [CT Case No. 1843/2021: Racha v. Babu Lal] against the said persons under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Rohini. After investigation, a chargesheet has also been filed.

5.

Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Memorandum of Settlement dated 23.04.2025. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

6.

Petitioner No. 1 is present in person, and is identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are present through video conference, and have been identified by learned counsel. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO.

7.

Pursuant to the settlement, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have resolved their disputes and are living peacefully as husband and wife.

8.

Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is noncompoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

9.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court held as follows:

"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 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-andfast category can be prescribed." [Emphasis supplied.] Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read 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. 29.2.

(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.] 10.

In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

a matrimonial relationship, and the parties have since resolved their disputes and are presently living together. I have also interacted with respondent No. 2, and am satisfied that she has entered into the settlement voluntarily. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. Such a situation would also prejudice the interests of the minor child.

11.

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 991/2022 dated 14.10.2022, lodged at Police Station Model Town, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed. 12.

The petition stands disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 16, 2026 'pv/KA'/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.