Allowed¶14

Naman Kalra & Ors. v. the State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./3078/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court quashing petition CRL.M.C. 3078/2025; FIR No. 106/2020 dated 03.03.2020 P.S. Paschim Vihar West; Sections 498A/406/354/34 IPC matrimonial cruelty; quashing of non-compoundable offences on compromise under Section 528 BNSS / erstwhile Section 482 CrPC; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; settlement dated 19.02.2024 Delhi Mediation Centre Tis Hazari; decree of divorce; ₹16,00,000 settlement (₹10,70,000 paid, ₹5,30,000 Demand Draft No. 547129 dated 08.09.2025); Respondent No. 2 affidavit and no objection; Amit Mahajan, J.; order dated 09.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 106/2020 dated 03.03.2020 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West (offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ¶14

Naman Kalra & Ors. Vs the State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 106/2020 dated 03.03.2020 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West (offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 106/2020 dated 03.03.2020 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC (chargesheet additionally invoking Section 354 IPC against Petitioner No. 3), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS in view of the amicable settlement dated 19.02.2024 between the parties.

¶1

Court's answer

Although the offence under Section 406 IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Sections 354/498A IPC are non-compoundable, it is well settled that the High Court exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) can quash even non-compoundable offences on the ground of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, guided by the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 (quashing appropriate where disputes are matrimonial/family in nature with predominant civil character and stand fully resolved, and not for heinous offences).

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the matrimonial nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes (settlement dated 19.02.2024, receipt by Respondent No. 2 of the entire settlement amount, her affidavit and absence of objection, and the divorce decree), 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 discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶12

Key takeaways

FIR No. 106/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, and the petition is allowed in those terms.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J., order dated 09.09.2025) allowed CRL.M.C. 3078/2025 and quashed FIR No. 106/2020 dated 03.03.2020, P.S. Paschim Vihar West (offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; chargesheet additionally invoking Section 354 IPC against Petitioner No. 3), together with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of an amicable settlement dated 19.02.2024 reached at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts. The parties had obtained a decree of divorce; out of the settlement amount of ₹16,00,000/-, ₹10,70,000/- stood already paid and the balance ₹5,30,000/- was handed over in Court by Demand Draft No. 547129 dated 08.09.2025; Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit and confirmed receipt of the entire amount with no objection to quashing. Noting that the offence under Section 406 IPC is compoundable while those under Sections 354/498A IPC are non-compoundable, the Court invoked Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) and followed 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, holding that matrimonial disputes of predominantly civil character, entirely resolved between the parties, merit quashing; continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶1

$~75

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 3078/2025 & CRL.M.A. 13642/2025 NAMAN KALRA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shanul Kadian, Adv. along with petitioners.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) & ANR.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State. ASI Naresh & SI Chetan, PS Paschim Vihar. Mr. Rakesh Walia, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

09.09.2025

¶11

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 106/2020 dated 03.03.2020, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC against Petitioner No. 1 & Petitioner No.2 and under Sections 498A/406/354/34 of the IPC against Petitioner No. 3.

¶12

It is averred that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 10.02.2019, as per Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties. The other petitioners are the family members of Petitioner No. 1.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 3078/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 04/10/2025 at 15:21:57

¶17

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 present FIR.

¶18

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 on 19.02.2024, out of their own free will, without any force, pressure or coercion. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce and intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶19

In terms of the Settlement, out of the entire settlement amount of ₹16,00,000/-, a sum of ₹10,70,000/- already stands paid to Respondent No. 2 and the balance amount of ₹5,30,000/is handed over to Respondent No. 2 in Court today by way of Demand Draft bearing No.547129 dated 08.09.2025 drawn on DBS Bank India Limited, Old GT Karnal Road, Haryana. 6. The petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are present in person in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 7. Respondent No. 2 has filed her affidavit deposing that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioners in terms of settlement dated 19.02.2024 arrived at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

¶20

On being asked, Respondent No. 2 reaffirms that she has received the entire settlement amount and she has no objection if the proceedings emanating from the subject FIR are quashed. 9. Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas offences under Section 354/498A of the IPC are non-

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

CRL.M.C. 3078/2025

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 04/10/2025 at 15:21:57

¶25

compoundable.

¶26

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 :-

¶27

“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:

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

CRL.M.C. 3078/2025

¶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 04/10/2025 at 15:21:57

¶35

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.

¶37

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.”

¶38

(emphasis supplied)

¶39

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 :-

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction

Page 4 of 6

CRL.M.C. 3078/2025

under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

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

Page 5 of 6

CRL.M.C. 3078/2025

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.”

¶59

(emphasis supplied)

¶60

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 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.

¶61

In view of the above, FIR No.106/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶62

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶63

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶64

SEPTEMBER 9, 2025 “SK”

¶65

Page 6 of 6

¶66

CRL.M.C. 3078/2025

¶67

This is a digitally signed order.

¶68

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 04/10/2025 at 15:21:57

Naman Kalra & Ors. v. the State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naman Kalra & 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

Harish Sati Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sxxxx Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sonal Babu Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Pushpa Devi Vs Mangla Ram

Baharuddin Vs State NCT of Delhi

State (Nct of Delhi) through Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs Dharmender @ Sonu & Ors.