Allowed

Dushyant @ Sonu & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC3 Jul 2025W.P.(CRL)/1073/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 354/377 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents and the involvement in a matrimonial dispute where parties settled amicably, the Court held that continuation of proceedings would cause abuse of process and undue harassment. Thus, the FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.337/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Dushyant @ Sonu & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~39

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025

¶4

DUSHYANT @ SONU & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aman Kumar & Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advs. along with all the petitioners.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) for the State along with Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya & Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs.

¶8

SI Savita Solanki, PS Punjabi Bagh along with R-2 and her mother.

¶9

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

¶10

% 03.07.2025

¶11

CRL.M.A. 10196/2025 ( exemption )

¶12

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025

¶15

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 337/2018 dated 03.07.2018, registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, for offences under Sections 354/377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case.

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 04/08/2025 at 12:34:42

¶20

It is averred that Petitioner No. 1 is deaf and dumb and due to the said reason, the natural mother of Petitioner No. 1 has given consent to file the present quashing petition.

¶21

The brief facts are that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 22.01.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals in a “deaf and dumb group marriage ceremony”. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the family members of Petitioner No.1. 6. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 was being harassed by the petitioners. It is further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 on multiple occasions had forceful unnatural sex with Respondent No.2.

¶22

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by way of a settlement dated 08.04.2024, out of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute essentially arose due to matrimonial acrimony and the matter is now amicably settled between the parties. It is stated that both Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are deaf and dumb.

¶24

Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶25

In terms of the settlement dated 08.04.2024, entire settlement amount of ₹1,20,000/- already stands paid to Respondent No. 2. It is stated that Respondent No. 2 is remarried

¶26

W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025 Page 2 of 7

¶27

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 04/08/2025 at 12:34:42

¶28

and she is living happily.

¶29

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and Respondent No. 2 along with her mother are present in person. They have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶30

On being asked, Respondent No.2 through her mother states that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR, and has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

¶31

Offences under Sections 323/494/506 of the IPC are compoundable, whereas offences under Sections 354A(III)/377 of the IPC are non-compoundable. 14. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNSS ’) ( erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash offences which are noncompoundable 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 Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. 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 :-

¶32

“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:

¶33

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

¶34

Page 3 of 7

¶35

W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

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:

¶39

(i) ends of justice, or

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.”

¶45

(emphasis supplied)

¶46

Similarly , in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme

¶47

Page 4 of 7

¶48

W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 04/08/2025 at 12:34:42

¶51

Court had observed as under :-

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

Page 5 of 7

¶60

W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025

¶61

This is a digitally signed order.

¶62

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 04/08/2025 at 12:34:42

¶63

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.

¶64

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.

¶65

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

¶66

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.”

¶67

(emphasis supplied)

¶68

It is not in doubt that the offences under Sections 377 and 354/354A of IPC are serious in nature. The same cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences, in true sense, are not private in nature. 17. The present case, however, arises out of matrimonial disputes and the allegation of unnatural sex has been made by the wife against the husband. The parties have decided to part ways

¶69

W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025 Page 6 of 7

¶70

This is a digitally signed order.

¶71

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 04/08/2025 at 12:34:42

¶72

and move ahead in their lives burying the acrimony they had against each other.

¶73

This Court, in cases of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr. : CRL.M.C.830/2019 , Anmol Katyal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. : CRL.M.C.1613/2019 , Gajender Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. : CRL.M.C. 5216/2018 and Joginder Singh Bote & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Anr. : CRL.M.C. 4117/2018 , while exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC had quashed the FIRs registered for offences under Section 377 of the IPC on the basis of compromise entered into between the husband and the wife.

¶74

In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such a case, in the opinion of this Court, continuation of the proceedings would only cause ill will to fester between the parties and cause undue harassment to Respondent No.2, who is again married and living happily. 20. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and 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 opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶75

In view of the above, FIR No.337/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶76

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶77

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶78

JULY 3, 2025/ “SK”

¶79

Page 7 of 7

¶80

W.P.(CRL) 1073/2025

¶81

Dushyant @ Sonu & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dushyant @ Sonu & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and 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

Gulshan Babbar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ferdus Yesmin Barbhuiya & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Apoorva Kanaujia Vs NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mohd Imran Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Gaurav Bhayana & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Tarun Sharma and Ors. Vs the State Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Harvinder Singh & Anr. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Vinay Kumar & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sidharth Khera & Ors. Vs State (Gnctd) through SHO P.S. Caw Cell Nanakpura & Anr.

Anil Vs Anju Kumari & Ors.

Sageer Ahmed Vs State of Gnct of Delhi

Pp Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ajit Singh Sood Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.