Tincy Dewan & ORS. v. The State N.C.T Of Delhi & ANR.

$~29 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ TINCY DEWAN & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocates with Petitioners in person versus THE STATE N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for the State with Mr.

Aditya Khatri, Advocate along with ASI Sandeep, PS Paschim Vihar Mr. Sanjay K. Dewan, Ms. Kiran Shah, Advocates for Complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 13.10.2025 1.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 372/2023 dated 2nd March, 2023, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Paschim Vihar, West, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. 2.

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2 1 "BNSS"

2 "CrPC"

3 "IPC"

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

to 6 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 11th February, 2012, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties have a child from the said marriage. However, owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, and they began residing separately.

3.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later culminated into the impugned FIR.

4.

The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. In furtherance of the settlement, the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 have entered into an Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 13th August, 2024, whereby Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR 1,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2. As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 agreed to withdraw all other proceedings pending before various Courts. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 18th February, 2025, passed by the Family Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 5.

In light of the above, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, has confirmed her statement before the Court and has raised no objection to the quashing of the FIR. She further confirmed that, in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, she received INR 40,000/- at the time of recording of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

first motion, and INR 40,000/- at the stage of the second motion for divorce. In accordance with the Agreement, the Petitioners have tendered the balance amount of INR 20,000/- by way of Demand Draft No. 101117 drawn on Punjab National Bank, which has been duly received and acknowledged by Respondent No. 2 during the proceedings.

6.

Considering the nature of the allegations in the FIR, this Court specifically interacted with the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 through her counsel and her father, to ensure that she clearly understood the proceedings, given that she is a person with disability. For greater clarity, the Complainant filed an affidavit wherein she categorically and specifically stated on oath that the allegations in the FIR were false and untrue. She further clarified that she had not gone through the complaint when it was drafted by the counsel advising her at the relevant point of time, and she accordingly tendered an apology to the Court for not carefully reading its contents. This Court also takes note of the fact that both Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are deaf and dumb persons, and it is possible that Respondent No.

2 may not have fully understood the nature of the complaint at the time it was lodged. Nonetheless, she has now filed an affidavit on oath, assisted by her counsel, and in open Court has confirmed her signatures on the affidavit and affirmed that its contents are correct, as opposed to those in the original complaint.

7.

The Court has duly considered the afore-noted facts and circumstances. It is pertinent to note that the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, whereas the offence under Section 406 IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

8.

It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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. 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 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.

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] 9.

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 noncompoundable. 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. 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.

16.5. 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 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] 10.

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

purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 11.

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 372/2023 dated 2nd March, 2023, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Paschim Vihar, West, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

12.

The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 13.

It is clarified that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the minor child.

14.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with any pending application(s).

SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 13, 2025/ab The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.