Allowed¶¶64

Atul Pratap Singh v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Criminal Writ Petition – Quashing of FIR on settlement

Delhi HC17 Nov 2025W.P.(CRL)/3772/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(CRL) 3772/2025, decided 17.11.2025 by Amit Mahajan, J. — Quashing of FIR No. 572/2018 (PS Shakar Pur) under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on amicable settlement dated 20.11.2023 before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts; divorce decree obtained; ₹3,00,000/- paid by Demand Draft in Court; inherent power under Section 528 BNSS / erstwhile Section 482 CrPC to quash noncompoundable offences; reliance on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; matrimonial dispute; custody of minor child and legality of settlement left open; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No. 572/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending application(s) disposed of. ¶¶64

Atul Pratap Singh Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; FIR No. 572/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending application(s) disposed of.

¶¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 572/2018 registered at Police Station Shakar Pur under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed on the basis of the amicable settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

Keeping in view the nature of the (matrimonial) dispute and its amicable resolution, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive; continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court, making it a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶¶60

Ratio / Principle

It is well settled that the High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, guided by the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir (ends of justice / preventing abuse of process, exercised sparingly and with caution).

¶¶25

Key takeaways

Offences under Section 406 IPC are compoundable whereas the offence under Section 498A IPC is noncompoundable.obiter¶¶20
FIR No. 572/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.ratio¶¶61
The Court clarified that it has not gone into the legality of the settlement or any right in relation to the custody of the minor child, and that the legal rights of the minor child will not be affected in any manner by the order (see also ¶63).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition — Quashing of FIR on settlement — FIR No. 572/2018, P.S. Shakar Pur, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC — Marriage of 01.07.2009; complaint by wife (Respondent No. 2) of cruelty culminated in FIR; chargesheet filed only against petitioner — Parties amicably settled before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts on 20.11.2023 and obtained decree of divorce — Petitioner handed over jewellery/household articles per Annexure A of Settlement and paid ₹3,00,000/- by Demand Draft (no. 839187, UCO Bank) in Court; Respondent No. 2 acknowledged receipt of entire settlement amount and raised no objection — Held: Offence under S.406 IPC compoundable, S.498A IPC noncompoundable; yet High Court under S.528 BNSS (erstwhile S.482 CrPC) can quash even noncompoundable offences on compromise, per parameters in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 — Matrimonial dispute amicably resolved; continuance would abuse process of Court — FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed — Legality of settlement and custody of minor child not examined; minor's legal rights unaffected — Petition allowed, pending applications disposed of (AMIT MAHAJAN, J.).

¶1

$~100

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Date of Decision: 17^th November, 2025

¶4

+ W.P.(CRL) 3772/2025 & CRL.M.A. 34033/2025

¶5

ATUL PRATAP SINGH .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Mahima Malhotra and Mr. Aayush Goswami, Advocates along with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State with SI Sachin, PS Shakarpur. Mr. Nipun Kumar and Mr. R. Mansoori, Advocates for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL)

¶9

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 572/2018 dated 22.11.2018, registered at Police Station Shakar Pur, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶10

It is averred that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner was solemnized on 01.07.2009, as per Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies. One child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties and they started residing separately.

¶11

Signature Not Verified Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:2 2.11.2025 21:04:54

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 3772/2025

¶14

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against Petitioner and his family members, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR.

¶15

The chargesheet has been filed in the present case only against the petitioner.

¶16

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 20.11.2023, out of their own free will, without any force, pressure or coercion. Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have also obtained decree of divorce and intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶17

In terms of the Settlement dated 20.11.2023, the petitioner has agreed to hand over all the jewellery articles and household articles to Respondent No.2 as per Annexure A of the Settlement and pay a sum of ₹3,00,000/-, which is handed over today to Respondent no. 2 in the Court by way of a Demand Draft bearing no. 839187 dated 15.11.2025 drawn on by UCO Bank.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Offences under Sections 406 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:2 2.11.2025 21:04:54

¶24

W.P.(CRL) 3772/2025

¶25

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 :-

¶26

“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:

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

Signed By:SANJAY W.P.(CRL) 3772/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 2.11.2025 21:04:54

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

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 :-

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:2 2.11.2025 21:04:54

¶45

W.P.(CRL) 3772/2025

¶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

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:2 2.11.2025 21:04:54

¶56

W.P.(CRL) 3772/2025

¶57

oppression and prejudice; and

¶58

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.”

¶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