Petition to quash FIR No. 419/2022 under Sections 323/354A/34/506/509 IPC on ground of settlement between neighbours who filed cross-FIRs over a drainage dispute. The court declined quashing, holding Section 354A allegations were misused, and permitted trial proceedings on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~50
SUNDER SINGH DHANIK AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Harish Chand Sharma and Ms. Poonam B. Sharma, Advocates along with Petitioners in Person
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State with SI Virender Kumar, PS Aman Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R
% 11.02.2025
CRL.M.C. 234/2025
Page 1 of 7
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 18/02/2025 at 11:08:14
the Petitioners on one side and Respondent No. 2 and her husband on the other.
CRL.M.C. 234/2025
Page 2 of 7
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 18/02/2025 at 11:08:14
deliberately given false information to the I.O. to invoke the rigours of Section 354A IPC.
“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.
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 .
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.
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
1 No. 13 of 2013
2 (2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 234/2025
Page 3 of 7
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 18/02/2025 at 11:08:14
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 .”
(Emphasis Supplied)
“15. This Court expresses its anguish at how provisions such as Sections 354A/506 IPC are falsely invoked at the drop of a hat to register one’s displeasure at the conduct of another individual. This merely trivialises the offence of sexual harassment and casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
3 2022:DHC:294
4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801
CRL.M.C. 234/2025
Page 4 of 7
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 18/02/2025 at 11:08:14
“10. The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for. In recent times, the invocation of Sections 498A, 376, 377, 506 of the IPC as a combined package in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes is a practice which has been condemned by this Court on several occasions. In certain cases, the wife and her family tend to use a criminal complaint with all the above serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a mechanism and a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their demands, which are mostly monetary in nature. Sometimes this is done in a fit of rage after a marital dispute, while at times it is a planned strategy in other cases. Unfortunately, it is not just the parties who are involved in this abuse of the process of law. They are understandably fuelled by the emotions of the situation. But other stakeholders also worsen the situation as they may often devise such crafty strategies for the women to adopt such arm-twisting tactics for their ulterior motives. Further, the police personnel are sometimes quick to jump into action in selective cases and arrest the husband or even their relatives including aged and bedridden parents and grand-parents of the husband. The trial courts are hesitant in granting bail to the accused persons being swayed by the “gravity of the offences” mentioned in the FIR. The collective effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved therein, which is that even minor disputes between husband and wife tend to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation and washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or cohabitation. The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands .”
(Emphasis Supplied)
CRL.M.C. 234/2025
Page 5 of 7
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 18/02/2025 at 11:08:14
mere counterblast to the complaint lodged by Petitioner no. 2 against the husband of Respondent no. 2, which has been registered as FIR No. 418/2022 also under Section 354-A IPC. The cross-FIRs were filed over a water drainage pipe dispute between neighbours to settle scores. It is unfortunate that Petitioner no. 2 and Respondent no. 2 respectively have made serious allegations attracting Section 354-A IPC.
CRL.M.C. 234/2025
Page 6 of 7
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 18/02/2025 at 11:08:14
misuse of these provisions by individuals seeking to settle personal scores rather than seeking legitimate legal recourse.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2025/ rhc/AKT
CRL.M.C. 234/2025
Page 7 of 7
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 18/02/2025 at 11:08:14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR under Sections 323/354A/34/506/509 IPC should be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
Whether allegations under Section 354A IPC were falsely invoked as a counterblast in a neighbourly dispute over a drainage pipeline.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of GujaratRelied on¶10
(2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Dr. Karunakar Patra v. StateRelied on¶11
2022:DHC:294
Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh ShardaRelied on¶12
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Sunder Singh Dhanik and Ors
The State of NCT of Delhi
Respondent No. 2 (complainant)
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
