Allowed

Sh. Sagar & Ors. v. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2024W.P.(CRL)/148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application exempting documents from attachment and quashed an FIR registered in matrimonial discord cases. The court found the dispute amicable, settled, and suitable for quashing under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 727/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Sh. Sagar & Ors. Vs the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~62

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 148/2024

¶4

¶5

SH. SAGAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rishi, Adv. All the petitioners in person. versus THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V Khatri, ASC for the State with SI Krishan Kumar, PS Bawana, Delhi. Mr. Lavish Rajput and Mr. Mayank Rana, Advs. for R-2. Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶8

% 15.01.2024

¶9

CRL.M.A. 1262/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies documents / dim annexures and proper margin)

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 148/2024

¶13

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 727/2022 dated 18.09.2022, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), registered at

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 03:42:24

¶16

Police Station Bawana. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.

¶17

It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 15.06.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the relatives of Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, due to which the petitioners and Respondent No.2 have been living separately since 07.01.2021. 5. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint to the ACP, CAW Cell, Rohini, Delhi against the petitioners alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners, which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR No. 727/2022. 6. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of family and common friends, on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence, and a Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.01.2024 has been signed by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 to that effect. Pursuant to the settlement, Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶18

In terms of the Settlement dated 10.01.2024, out of the total settlement amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only), an amount of ₹3,33,334/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Four Only) already stands paid to Respondent No. 2, and the balance settlement amount of ₹1,66,667/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) is handed over in Court today by way of Manager’s Cheque No. 010327 dated

¶19

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 03:42:24

¶20

08.01.2024 drawn on HDFC Bank, Barwala, New Delhi-110039. 8. The learned counsel for the parties submit that all the terms of the said settlement have been complied with. 9. The parties are present before this Court in person, and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 10. Offence under section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable whereas offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable. 11. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under CrPC on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Courts while quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶21

“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:

¶22

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.

¶23

¶24

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:

¶25

(i) ends of justice, or

¶26

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶27

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶28

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

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.

¶30

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.”

¶31

(emphasis supplied)

¶32

12. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State

¶33

¶34

of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶35

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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.”

¶47

(emphasis supplied)

¶48

¶49

Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction can be exercised and the proceedings be quashed.

¶50

Thus, keeping in mind the nature of allegations, the settlement between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time, FIR No. 727/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶51

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶52

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶53

JANUARY 15, 2024 ‘KDK’

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 03:42:24

Sh. Sagar & Ors. v. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Sagar & Ors. v. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Seema Gupta Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.

Smt Beena Devi Vs Union of India through Its Secretary & Ors.

Sh. Yasar Khan Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sajid Moorad Fazalbhoy Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi Anr. & Anr.

Mr. Jai Prakash (Senior Citizen) & Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Jayant Amit Vs State (Gnct of Delhi)

Mr. Neeraj Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Prerana Tewari Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Saroj Kumar & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Esi Corporation Vs M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons & Anr.

Afzal Vs the State

Ravinder Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Mustajab Gulam Mohammed Naviwala Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Priyanka Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.