Allowed¶34

Hem Chand & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC6 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./1347/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on basis of compromise/settlement deed; inherent powers of High Court under Section 528 BNSS; offence under Sections 323, 342, 354A, 354B, 506 and 34 IPC; purely private matrimonial/family dispute, no public or societal interest; victim declined to press charges; State and complainant gave no objection; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; trial Court lacked power to compound; CRL.M.C. 1347/2025; P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi; decided 06.08.2025 by Arun Monga, J.; petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 85/2018 dated 22.06.2018 under Sections 323, 342, 354A, 354B, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Hem Chand & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 85/2018 dated 22.06.2018 registered at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi under Sections 323, 342, 354A, 354B, 506 and 34 IPC, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶10

Court's answer

The complainant/victim, interacted with in Court, categorically submitted that she regretted having made the allegations against the family members including her father-in-law and, in view of the settlement, did not wish to press any charges.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The matter being an entirely family matter, purely private in nature and involving neither public interest nor societal interest, it would be an exercise in futility to continue the criminal proceedings, which would be an abuse of the process of law and a burden on the judicial system.

¶27

Key takeaways

The genuineness of the compromise is not in dispute; however, since the trial Court was not empowered to compound certain offences, the Court deemed it expedient, in the larger interest of justice, to invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, for which purpose reference was made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.ratio¶28
The petition is allowed and FIR No. 85/2018 dated 22.06.2018 under Sections 323, 342, 354A, 354B, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Arun Monga, J.) allowed CRL.M.C. 1347/2025 and quashed FIR No. 85/2018 dated 22.06.2018, P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, under Sections 323, 342, 354A, 354B, 506 and 34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of a settlement between the parties to what the Court found to be an entirely private matrimonial-family dispute. The complainant/victim, interacted with in Court, stated she regretted the allegations and did not wish to press charges; counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor concurred in the compromise and conveyed no objection. Noting that the genuineness of the compromise was undisputed but that the trial Court was not empowered to compound the offences, and that continuance would be futile and an abuse of process with no public or societal interest involved, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, referring to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1347/2025

¶4

HEM CHAND & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr.Prakash Khandelwal, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State alongwith W/SI Priyanka and SI Satish Kumar, P.S.-Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and complainant in-person

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶9

O R D E R % 06.08.2025

¶10

Petitioners herein seek quashing of an FIR No. 85/2018 dated 22.06.2018 under Sections 323, 342, 354A, 354B, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, along with all the proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶11

Brief facts of the case are that the daughter of the Respondent No.2 got married to Sachin Kumar (Son of Petitioner no.1) on 21.02.2007.

¶12

2.1 On 13.10.2017, some misunderstanding arose between the petitioner no.3 and Mrs. Kamini (daughter of the Respondent No.2), who are sisters in laws of each other, wherein the petitioner No.1, her Father-in-law and his mother i.e. petitioner No.4 also intervened.

¶13

2.2 Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint by Respondent no.2, the

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

CRL.M.C. 1347/2025

¶16

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 18/08/2025 at 14:11:55

¶17

aforesaid FIR was registered against all the petitioners i.e. Petitioner No.1(Father-in-law), Petitioner No.4 (Grandmother-in-law), Petitioner No.2 (Brother-in-law) and Petitioner No.3 (Sister-in-law) of the daughter of Respondent no.2

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and Respondent no.2, with the intervention of well-wishers and family members, of their own volition and without any coercion or undue influence, have now amicably settled their differences vide Settlement Deed which is placed on record. He further submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, Respondent No.2 is not inclined to press charges against the petitioners and proceed further in the matter.

¶19

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and also interacted with the victim who is present in Court. It is stated that she is 42 years old and fully conscious of her rights and capable of taking decisions for her welfare. On a specific query put to her qua the nature of the allegations and the alleged offences involved in the FIR, she categorically submits that she regrets having made such allegations against the family members including her father-in-law, as she did not quite appreciate the adverse consequences of including such Sections at the time of registration of the FIR.

¶20

4.1 She submits that otherwise, the same arose out of the matrimonial acrimony at the relevant time between her and her husband which has now been amicably taken care of with the indulgence of the elders and the family members.

¶21

4.2 She further states that she does not wish to press any charges in view of the settlement arrived between her and her husband and is currently

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

CRL.M.C. 1347/2025

¶24

¶25

enjoying the matrimonial bliss and therefore, wishes to maintain cordial relationships not only with her husband but also with the other petitioners who are her parents-in-law.

¶26

In response to a Court query, both the counsel for Respondent No. 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State concur with the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties and convey their no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 as well as perused the material available on record.

¶27

Having interacted with the complainant and given that it seems to be an entirely family matter and purely private in nature, not involving either public interest or any societal interest, it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the further criminal proceedings as the same would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law, apart from being a burden on the judicial system as well as wasteful expenditure of the public by the prosecution.

¶28

The genuineness of compromise is not in dispute. However, since the trial Court was not empowered to compound certain offences, the criminal proceedings could not be dropped. In the premise, in the larger interest of justice, invoking inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 528 BNSS it is deemed expedient to quash the FIR in question. Reference in this context may be had to judgment rendered in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

¶29

Taking a wholesome view and in order to let the parties to enter mutual cordiality and the family bonhomie which will go long way to establish peace rather than promote hostility in case further proceedings

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

CRL.M.C. 1347/2025

¶32

¶33

continue, this is a fit case to exercise inherent power under 528 of BNSS in quashing the FIR in question.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 85/2018 dated 22.06.2018 under Sections 323, 342, 354A, 354B, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed.

¶35