Chetan Sharma & ORS. v. The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR.
$~40 & 43 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 CHETAN SHARMA & ORS.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr. Dharm Vir Singh, Advocate with Petitioners in person.
versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State.
Mr. Manish Srivastava, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.
+ CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 CHETAN SHARMA AND ORS.
.....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Dharm Vir Singh, Advocate with Petitioners in person.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State.
Mr. Manish Srivastava, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 30.05.2025 1.
The present petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seek quashing of the following FIRs: (a) FIR No. 307/2021 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Mandawli Fazal Pur and all other proceedings emanating therefrom; and (b) FIR No. 508/2020 registered under Sections 323/341/506 of IPC at P.S. Mandawli Fazal Pur and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. 2.
The aforesaid FIRs have been registered by the Complainant/ Respondent No. 2. Chetan Sharma (the Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 and Petitioner No. 1 in CRL.M.C. 4039/2025) was the husband of the Complainant. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 in CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 were the inlaws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 07th November, 2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One male child was born from the said marriage, who is presently in the custody of Respondent No. 2. However, due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail. 3.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the registration of FIR No. 307/2021 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC.
4.
Respondent No. 2 made another complaint against her husband, alleging that he used to abused her. She specifically referred to an incident dated 15th November, 2020, alleging that her husband, after consuming 1 "BNSS"
2 "Cr.P.C."
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
alcohol, subjected her to abuse. It is stated that when she protested and attempted to leave the home, he obstructed her and allegedly began to assault her. She further alleged that her husband punched and kicked her and also tried to injure her with a knife, resulting in bruises on her neck. Consequently, on the basis of this statement, FIR No. 508/2020 was registered under Sections 323/341/506 of IPC. 5.
The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence and a composite Settlement Deed dated 16th November, 2024 has been executed by the Petitioners and Respondent No.
2. In terms of the Settlement Deed, the Petitioners had agreed to pay a total sum of INR 9,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2. Of the said amount, the final instalment amounting INR 2,50,000/- was agreed to be paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of quashing of the impugned FIRs. The said payment has been made to Respondent No. 2 before the Court through a demand draft bearing DD No. 505294, for the sum of INR 2,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank dated 28th May, 2025. A copy of the demand draft has been handed over across the board, and the same is taken on record. 6.
Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent through order dated 07th November, 2016 passed by the Principal Judge-Family Court, East District/ Karkardooma, Delhi.
7.
The Complainant is present in person before the Court, and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer. She affirms the receipt of the entire settlement amount and states that she has amicably settled her differences 3 "IPC"
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
with the Petitioners. She submits that as per the settlement, the custody of the minor child rests with her. She further clarifies that her decision to settle the matters is voluntary, without any coercion or pressure, and that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIRs. Affidavits to this effect have also been placed on record. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly prayed for the quashing of the impugned FIR. 8.
The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, while the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, the offences under Sections 406, 323, 341, 506 are compoundable at the instance of the aggrieved parties, with the permission of the Court. 9.
It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 582 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 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.
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] 10.
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: 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.
16.1. 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. 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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] 11.
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 cases are fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582 of BNSS as no purpose would be served by keeping the disputes alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 12.
In view of the above, the impugned FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 307/2021 and FIR No. 508/2020, both registered at P.S. Mandawli Fazal Pur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 13.
The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 14.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of along with pending application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 30, 2025 d.negi The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.