Husband and in-laws sought quashing of a 498A/406 IPC FIR after amicable settlement with the complainant-wife and divorce by mutual consent. Relying on Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir, the Delhi High Court held matrimonial disputes settled between parties warrant quashing and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.
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.
$~77
JAGANNATH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.S. Khan and Ms. Qausar Khan, Advocates.
versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 23.04.2025
1 “BNSS”
2 “Cr.P.C”
3 “IPC”
CRL.M.C. 37/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 10:59:22
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 3rd November, 2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the said marriage. However, due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail.
“1. The present non contentious petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR NO. 598/2016 Under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, P.S. Vijay Vihar, New Delhi on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. As per the submissions, the matter between the petitioners and R-2 has been amicably settled.
3. Vide separate statement recorded in this behalf, petitioners stated that dispute between them and R-2 has been amicably settled as per the settlement deed dated 04.08.2023. The settlement has been arrived at between the parties herein without any force, coercion, undue influence and
CRL.M.C. 37/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 10:59:22
pressure. They have signed the settlement deed with their wish and will. Vide separate statement recorded in this behalf, R-2 stated that dispute between her and petitioners has been amicably settled as per the settlement deed dated 04.08.2023. The settlement has been arrived at between the parties herein without any force, coercion, undue influence and pressure. She has signed the settlement deed with her wish and will.
4. Investigating Officer is present in Court and has duly verified the identity of both the parties. Vide separate statement recorded in this behalf, Investigating Officer stated that the charge sheet has been filed in the present matter. He identified the prosecturix/victim/R-2. He has also identified the petitioners who are accused in the present matter. He has also verified the settlement deed executed between the parties.
5. The parties along with their counsels have confirmed that the settlement deed has been duly entered into between them.
6. Learned counsel for State/APP enters appearance and accepts notice. He submits that in view of the statement recorded, let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Court.
7. The compromise/settlement deed is in writing and has been duly signed by both the parties. I have heard both the parties and from the direct dialogue with both the parties, it is observed that the consent of both the parties is found to be genuine and has not been obtained under undue influence or pressure.
8. In view of the above, matter be placed before the Hon’ble Court on 23.04.2025.”
CRL.M.C. 37/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 10:59:22
compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. ,4 the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:
“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.
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.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
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
4 (2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 37/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 10:59:22
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.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
9 . Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr. ,5 the Supreme Court had observed as under:
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
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.
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.
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.
5 (2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 37/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 10:59:22
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.”
[Emphasis Supplied] 10. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582 of BNSS as no
CRL.M.C. 37/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 10:59:22
purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 23, 2025 nk
CRL.M.C. 37/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 10:59:22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 598/2016 under Sections 498A/406 IPC could be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement and divorce by mutual consent between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶8
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.Relied on¶9
(2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Jagannath & Ors.
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
