Sidharth Khera & Ors. v. State (Gnctd) through SHO P.S. Caw Cell Nanakpura & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./3954/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC matrimonial cruelty case; Section 498A IPC non-compoundable yet quashable under Section 528 BNSS / erstwhile Section 482 CrPC on settlement between parties; reliance on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.03.2025; settlement deed dated 29.05.2025; divorce by mutual consent; chargesheet under Sections 498A/509/406/34 IPC; Delhi High Court; CRL.M.C. 3954/2025; Justice Amit Mahajan.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 159/2016 dated 01.09.2016 registered at Crime (Women) Cell Nanak Pura under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ¶¶52

Sidharth Khera & Ors. Vs State (Gnctd) through SHO P.S. Caw… — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 159/2016 dated 01.09.2016 registered at Crime (Women) Cell Nanak Pura under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 159/2016 dated 01.09.2016 registered at Crime (Women) Cell Nanak Pura under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, ought to be quashed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

Keeping in view the nature of the dispute (a matrimonial/family dispute) and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, 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.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

It is well settled that the High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), can quash offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

This is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.ratio¶¶50
FIR No. 159/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.ratio¶¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J.; order dated 02.07.2025) allowed CRL.M.C. 3954/2025 and quashed FIR No. 159/2016 dated 01.09.2016 registered at Crime (Women) Cell Nanak Pura for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of an amicable settlement (Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.03.2025; settlement deed dated 29.05.2025) between the petitioner-husband Sidharth Khera & Ors. and Respondent No. 2 (complainant-wife). A chargesheet stood against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC) and Petitioner No. 2 (Sections 498A/509/406/34 IPC). Respondent No. 2 had obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and on 29.05.2025 gave a voluntary statement before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) that the dispute stood settled and she had received the entire settlement amount; in Court she reaffirmed receipt and raised no objection to quashing. Though Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the Court, relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, held that under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) even non-compoundable offences can be quashed on a compromise between accused and complainant, particularly matrimonial/family disputes of predominantly civil character, since continuance would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 3954/2025 SIDHARTH KHERA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, Adv. along with petitioners.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE (GNCTD) THROUGH SHO P.S. CAW CELL NANAKPURA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State. SI Balwant Singh. Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 02.07.2025 1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 159/2016 dated 01.09.2016, registered at Crime (Women) Cell Nanak Pura, for offence under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶8

It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 04.12.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is stated that no child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of Petitioner No.1.

¶9

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 CRL.M.C. 3954/2025 Page 1 of 6

¶10

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 07/07/2025 at 12:05:01

¶11

aforementioned FIR.

¶12

Chargesheet has been filed against Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.3 for the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC. Petitioner No.2 has been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 498A/509/406/34 of the IPC.

¶13

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.03.2025, on their own free will, without any undue pressure, coercion, influence, misrepresentation or mistake. Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶14

On 29.05.2025, Respondent No. 2 appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and gave a voluntary statement that the present dispute has been amicably settled as per the settlement deed dated 29.05.2025 and she had received the entire settlement amount.

¶15

The petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 8. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 reaffirms that she has received the entire settlement amount and states that she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed.

¶16

Offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable in nature whereas offences under Sections 406 and 509 of the IPC are compoundable in nature. 10. 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 non- CRL.M.C. 3954/2025 Page 2 of 6

¶17

¶18

compoundable 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 :-

¶19

“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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

CRL.M.C. 3954/2025

¶26

¶27

entire disputes among themselves.

¶28

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.”

¶29

(emphasis supplied)

¶30

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 :-

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

CRL.M.C. 3954/2025

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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.”

¶45

(emphasis supplied)

¶46

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

¶47

CRL.M.C. 3954/2025

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

¶50

process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶51