Deeepak & ORS. v. State NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~71 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 2428/2025, CRL.M.A. 10862/2025 DEEEPAK & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for R-2.

Mr. Rajiv Kumar, SI, ATS/ Rohini.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 07.08.2025 1.

The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeking quashing of FIR No. 489/2021 dated 24th September, 2021, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,3 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2.

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2 and Petitioners No. 2-6 are her in-laws. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 22nd November, 2019. The parties have no child from this marriage.

3.

Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties 1 "BNSS"

2 "Cr.P.C."

3 "IPC"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

deteriorated and they started residing separately since 18th October, 2020. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the Petitioners, alleging that they had subjected her to cruelty, which later culminated into the impugned FIR.

4.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 11th January, 2023, before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. In terms of the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR 4,21,000/- to Respondent No. 2 who in turn agreed to withdraw all pending cases against the Petitioners. Of the said amount, a sum of INR 3,00,000/- has been paid to her. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 20th March, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge (North-West District), Family Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi. A copy of the settlement agreement is placed on record and perused by the Court.

5.

Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms that she has voluntarily settled her disputes with the Petitioners and executed the settlement agreement. The remaining settlement amount of INR 1,21,000/- is handed over to Respondent No. 2 by way of a demand draft bearing No. 503516, for the sum of INR 1,21,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank dated 6th August, 2025. A copy of the said DD is handed over across the board and taken on record. Respondent No. 2 confirms the receipt of the complete settlement amount The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

and states that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR.

6.

The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable while offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. 7.

It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly 482 of Cr.P.C.), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,4 the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High 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. 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. 4 (2014) 6 SCC 466 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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] 8.

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,5 the 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. 5 (2017) 9 SCC 641 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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] 9.

Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 10.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 489/2021 dated 24th September, 2021, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

11.

The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 12.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications (if any) are disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 7, 2025 nk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.