Allowed

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

Delhi HC15 Apr 2025CRL.M.C./2030/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a matrimonial dispute FIR after settlement with the complainant, including payment amounts and divorce by mutual consent. Relying on Narinder Singh guidelines, the court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings as continuation would abuse judicial process.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sonu@Praveen and Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~80

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2030/2025 & CRL.M.A. 9176/2025

¶4

SONU@PRAVEEN AND ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. R. K. Chaudhary, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State. SI Suresh Kr. Meena, PS: New Usman Pur. R-2 through VC.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 15.04.2025

¶9

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 955/2019 dated 31^st December, 2019, registered at P.S. New Usmanpur for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,¹ and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961² as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. This request is made in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties, as evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding executed on 18^th August 2023, between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2/ Complainant. A copy of the aforementioned Settlement Agreement has been duly placed on record.

¶10

1 “IPC”

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

CRL.M.C. 2030/2025

¶13

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 17/04/2025 at 12:45:25

¶14

The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 04^th February, 2018, however the parties eventually separated on account of temperamental differences. The marriage has now been dissolved through decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 22^nd April, 2024 issued by the Family Court, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 3. As per the Settlement terms, Petitioner No. 1 had agreed to pay a total sum of INR 4,20,000/- to Respondent No. 2. Of the said amount, a sum of INR 1,00,000/- has been paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of recording of first motion for seeking divorce under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A further sum of INR 1,00,000/- has been paid to her at the time of recording of statement of second motion. Amount of 1,00,000/was agreed to be paid at the time of disposal after the first motion but one week before the filing of the second motion. The remaining amount of INR 1,20,000/- was agreed to be paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of quashing of the impugned FIR. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that all the payments have been duly paid.

¶15

Respondent No. 2 is present through video conferencing, duly identified by the IO as well as the counsel. She states that she has no objections to the quashing of the FIR. An affidavit/No Objection Certificate to this effect has also been placed on record. Respondent no. 2 has confirmed that she has received the due amount in accordance with the Agreement for Settlement. 5. Before the Joint Registrar, on 26^th March 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded wherein she stated that the dispute between her and Petitioners have been settled amicably without any force, coercion, undue influence and pressure on her.

¶16

2 Dowry Prohibition Act

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

CRL.M.C. 2030/2025

¶19

¶20

At this juncture, it is imperative to emphasise the Court’s power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings pursuant to a settlement between the parties. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. ,³ has laid down certain guidelines and parameters for the High Courts while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings:

¶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

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:

¶24

(i) ends of justice, or

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

CRL.M.C. 2030/2025

¶30

¶31

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. ”

¶32

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶33

In view of the law discussed above as well as the settlement between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus, as the continuation of the present proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose, but rather only amount to an abuse of the judicial process and impose an unwarranted burden on the State Exchequer.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 955/2019 dated 31^st December, 2019, registered at P.S. New Usmanpur under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC 1860, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶35