Allowed¶63

Vikash Sharma & Anr. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Quashing of FIR – matrimonial dispute

Delhi HC19 Nov 2025W.P.(CRL)/3473/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on settlement; Section 498A IPC non-compoundable yet quashable under inherent powers; Section 528 BNSS / erstwhile Section 482 CrPC; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; PS Govind Puri FIR No. 475/2017; Settlement Deed 06.07.2024; divorce decree; ₹2,00,000 settlement; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; abuse of process; ends of justice; matrimonial/family dispute of predominantly civil character; Delhi High Court; W.P.(CRL) 3473/2025; Amit Mahajan, J.; order dated 19.11.2025; petition allowed; minor child's rights preserved.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 475/2017 (PS Govind Puri, Sections 498A/406/34 IPC) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending application (CRL.M.A. 31564/2025) disposed of. ¶63

Vikash Sharma & Anr. Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 475/2017 (PS Govind Puri, Sections 498A/406/34 IPC) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending application (CRL.M.A. 31564/2025) disposed of.

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 475/2017 dated 23.11.2017 (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Govind Puri) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed on the ground of the amicable settlement between the parties (Settlement Deed dated 06.07.2024). +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Given the nature of the dispute (matrimonial/family) and its amicable resolution, 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.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

Proceeding on the settled position (as laid down in Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir), this Court affirmed that in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) it can quash even non-compoundable offences on the ground of a compromise between the accused and the complainant.

¶26

Key takeaways

This was a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.ratio¶59
FIR No. 475/2017 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.ratio¶60
Clarified that the Court has not gone into the legality of the settlement or any right in relation to the custody of the minor child.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — matrimonial dispute — settlement between parties. Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J.) allowed a writ petition under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 475/2017, P.S. Govind Puri, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, noting the charge-sheet stood filed. Marriage of 26.11.2004; differences led Respondent No. 2 (wife) to complain of cruelty, culminating in the FIR. Parties amicably settled by Settlement Deed dated 06.07.2024; divorce decree obtained; out of the settlement amount of ₹2,00,000/-, ₹1,00,000/- stood paid and the balance was handed over in Court by Demand Draft No.032700 dated 15.11.2025; custody of the child agreed with Respondent No. 2; accused father Ramesh Kumar had died on 01.09.2021. Following Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, and noting Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable while Section 406 IPC is compoundable, the Court held continuance would be an abuse of process and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings. It clarified it had not examined the legality of the settlement or custody rights, and the minor child's legal rights remain unaffected.

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 3473/2025 & CRL.M.A. 31564/2025 VIKASH SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Poonam Shahi, Adv. along with P-1 in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandopadhya, ASC for the State with Ms. Amisha Gupta, Adv. SI Ravi Yadav, PS Govind Puri.

¶6

Ms. Isha, Advocate for R- 2 along with R-2 in person.

¶7

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

¶8

% 19.11.2025

¶9

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 475/2017 dated 23.11.2017, registered at Police Station Govind Puri, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case.

¶10

It is averred that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 26.11.2004, as per Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies. Two children were born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties and they started residing separately. Petitioner No. 2 is mother of Petitioner No. 1.

¶11

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 3473/2025

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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 22/11/2025 at 13:08:33

¶15

Petitioner No. 1 and his family members, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the present FIR.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of Petitioner No. 1 namely Mr. Ramesh Kumar, who was also an accused in the present FIR, has passed away on 01.09.2021.

¶17

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties by way of Settlement Deed dated 06.07.2024, 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.

¶18

In terms of the Settlement, out of the entire settlement amount of ₹2,00,000/-, a sum of ₹1,00,000/- already stands paid to Respondent No. 2 and the balance amount of ₹1,00,000/- is handed over to Respondent No. 2 in Court today by way of Demand Draft bearing No.032700 dated 15.11.2025 drawn on the Uttrakhand Gramin Bank, 184 Haridwar Branch, District Haridwar. It is settled that custody of child with remain with Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No. 1 shall not claim custody or any visitation right of the child in future.

¶19

The Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶20

On being asked, Respondent No. 2 reaffirms that she has received the entire settlement amount and has no objection if the proceedings emanating from the subject FIR are quashed.

¶21

W.P.(CRL) 3473/2025

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶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 22/11/2025 at 13:08:33

¶25

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

¶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

¶32

W.P.(CRL) 3473/2025

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

¶35

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.

¶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

Page 4 of 6

¶44

W.P.(CRL) 3473/2025

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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

¶53

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in

¶54

W.P.(CRL) 3473/2025

¶55

Page 5 of 6

¶56

¶57

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 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.”

¶58

(emphasis supplied)

¶59

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.

¶60