Allowed¶60

Vipin Kumar Verma & Ors. v. the State (N.C. T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Jul 2025W.P.(CRL)/1461/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court quashes FIR on settlement/compromise between accused and complainant; exercise of inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) to quash noncompoundable offence; Section 498A IPC noncompoundable, Section 406 IPC compoundable; matrimonial dispute of predominantly civil character; parameters of Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 applied; settlement dated 28.06.2024, Delhi Mediation Centre Tis Hazari; mutual consent divorce; wife's no-objection and receipt of entire settlement amount; FIR No. 507/2021 PS Sarai Rohilla; W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025; Amit Mahajan J.; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 507/2021 registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ¶60

Vipin Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs the State (N.C. T. of Delhi)… — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 507/2021 registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, exercising power under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings relating to the noncompoundable offence under Section 498A IPC (alongside compoundable Section 406 IPC) on the ground of a compromise/settlement between the accused and the complainant. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable in nature, whereas the offence under Section 406 is compoundable in nature.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Acting on the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir, the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, such power being exercisable to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶28

Key takeaways

Keeping in view the nature of the (matrimonial) dispute and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive; continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court, and this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.ratio¶58
FIR No. 507/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, and the petition is allowed in those terms.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal writ petition allowed — FIR No. 507/2021 (P.S. Sarai Rohilla) under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed. Marriage (05.02.2018) having ended in discord and a cruelty complaint by the wife (Respondent No. 2), the parties fully settled their disputes by Settlement dated 28.06.2024 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, obtained a mutual-consent divorce, and Respondent No. 2 confirmed in Court and before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 05.05.2025 receipt of the entire settlement amount and her no-objection to quashing. Noting that Section 498A IPC is noncompoundable while Section 406 IPC is compoundable, the Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), relying on the parameters laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 — under which matrimonial/family disputes of predominantly civil character, wholly resolved between the parties, may be quashed where continuance would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of the process of Court. (AMIT MAHAJAN, J.; Order dated 07.07.2025)

¶1

$~72

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025 VIPIN KUMAR VERMA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manish Bhadauria, Mr. Atul Agnihotri and Ms. Priyanka Bhadauria, Advocates along with Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in person. Petitioners No. 4 and 5 (through VC).

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE (N.C. T. OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State with Mr. Aryan Sachdeva and Mr. Abhinav Arya, Advocates. ASI Om Prakash, PS Sarai Rohilla. Respondent No.2 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 07.07.2025

¶7

CRL.M.A. 13605/2025 (Exemption)

¶8

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶9

The application stands disposed of.

¶10

W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025

¶11

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 507/2021 dated 24.08.2021, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, for the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶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 14/07/2025 at 13:31:42

¶16

proceedings arising therefrom.

¶17

It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 05.02.2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock. 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. 2-5 are the family members of Petitioner No.1.

¶18

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against Petitioner No. 1 and his family members, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR.

¶19

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties by way of Settlement dated 28.06.2024 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, of their own free will, without any undue influence, coercion, pressure, misrepresentation or mistake. 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.

¶20

On 05.05.2025, Respondent No. 2 appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and gave a voluntary statement that the present dispute has been amicably settled as per the settlement deed dated 28.06.2024 and that she had received the entire settlement amount.

¶21

Petitioner Nos. 1-3 and Respondent No. 2 are present in person in Court and Petitioner Nos. 4-5 have appeared through video conferencing. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶22

On being asked, Respondent No. 2 reaffirms that she has

¶23

W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 14/07/2025 at 13:31:42

¶27

received the entire settlement amount and states that she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed.

¶28

Offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable in nature whereas offences under Section 406 is compoundable in nature. 11. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya 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 :-

¶29

“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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025

¶34

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 14/07/2025 at 13:31:42

¶35

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.

¶36

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.”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025

¶44

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025

¶55

¶56

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.”

¶57

(emphasis supplied)

¶58

Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and that the 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.

¶59

In view of the above, FIR No. 507/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶60

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

JULY 7, 2025 DU

Page 6 of 6

W.P.(CRL) 1461/2025

¶65

This is a digitally signed order.

¶66

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 14/07/2025 at 13:31:42

Vipin Kumar Verma & Ors. v. the State (N.C. T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Verma & Ors. v. the State (N.C. T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Subhash Chand Aggarwal & Ors. Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Sagir Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Shri Rashid & Anr. Vs the State through SHO Sagarpur, New Delhi & Anr.

Jitender @ Kalla Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Raj Kumar @ Sunny Shisodiya Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Vineet Sachdeva & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Suchita Goyal & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sonu @ Sonu Rakwar & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

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