Allowed¶66

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC9 Dec 2025W.P.(CRL)/4071/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; cruelty and dowry demand matrimonal dispute; settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts; divorce by mutual consent; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 CrPC inherent powers; compounding of non-compoundable offence on compromise; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 guidelines; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 principles; Column No. 12 chargesheet relatives; abuse of process of Court; ends of justice; W.P.(CRL) 4071/2025; Delhi High Court; Sanjeev Narula, J.; P.S. Ranhola.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 675/2019 dated 30.10.2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Ranhola, and all proceedings emanating therefrom; parties to abide by the terms of the settlement; petition disposed of along with pending applications. ¶66

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 675/2019 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Ranhola and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 BNSS in view of the settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Reiterating settled law, the Court held that High Courts, in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), can compound even non-compoundable offences on the ground of a compromise between the accused and the complainant.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Considering the matrimonial nature of the dispute and the amicable settlement, the case was fit for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶65

Key takeaways

FIR No. 675/2019 dated 30.10.2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Ranhola, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom, were quashed; parties directed to abide by the terms of the settlement; petition disposed of along with pending applications.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.) allowed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) and quashed FIR No. 675/2019 dated 30.10.2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Ranhola, together with all proceedings emanating therefrom. The husband and complainant-wife had settled their matrimonial disputes before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts (30.08.2024) and obtained a divorce by mutual consent (order dated 19.04.2025, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts). Respondent No. 2 appeared in person, was identified by the IO, confirmed the settlement was voluntary and without coercion, that she had received the entire settlement amount, and raised no objection to quashing, including against relatives named in Column No. 12 of the chargesheet against whom summons had not been issued. Applying the guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court held that matrimonial disputes of predominantly civil character, amicably resolved, merit quashing in exercise of inherent powers notwithstanding that Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, as continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Parties directed to abide by the settlement terms; petition disposed of along with pending applications.

¶1

$~75

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 4071/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36642/2025

¶4

RAKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through:

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State along with Mr. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates. SI Udit, PS Ranhola. Mr. N. Dogra, Advoate for Respondent No. 2.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 09.12.2025

¶11

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks quashing of FIR No. 675/2019 dated 30^th October, 2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ at P.S. Ranhola, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the Complainant/Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was

¶13

1 “BNSS”

¶14

2 “CrPC”

¶15

3 “IPC”

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 4071/2025 Page 1 of 6

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 11/12/2025 at 13:18:28

¶19

solemnized on 26^th August, 2014, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties have no child from this marriage. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately.

¶20

Respondent No. 2 thereafter lodged a complaint alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR.

¶21

The parties have entered into a settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 30^th August, 2024. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent by order dated 19^th April, 2025, passed by the Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

¶22

Respondent No. 2, who appears in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, states that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She confirms that the settlement was arrived at voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion, and that she has received the entire settlement amount.

¶23

It has been pointed out that apart from the Petitioner, there are other accused named in the FIR, whose names have been mentioned in column No. 12 of the chargesheet. According to counsel for the Petitioner, while taking cognizance of the offences, the Trial Court did not issue summons against the said relatives. Nonetheless, Respondent No. 2 states that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR not only against the Petitioner but also against the said relatives named in Column No. 12.

¶24

W.P.(CRL) 4071/2025 Page 2 of 6

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 11/12/2025 at 13:18:28

¶27

The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. However, it is wellestablished that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to 482 of CrPC), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a 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:

¶28

“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

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.

¶30

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:

¶31

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶32

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

¶33

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which

¶34

4 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶35

W.P.(CRL) 4071/2025 Page 3 of 6

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 11/12/2025 at 13:18:28

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.”

¶41

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶42

8 . Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

¶43

& Anr. ,⁵ the Supreme Court had observed as under:

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

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 non-compoundable.

¶47

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the

¶48

5 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶49

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 11/12/2025 at 13:18:28

¶50

W.P.(CRL) 4071/2025 Page 4 of 6

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.(CRL) 4071/2025 Page 5 of 6

¶61

This is a digitally signed order.

¶62

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 11/12/2025 at 13:18:28

¶63

system will weigh in the balance.”

¶64

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶65

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 528 of BNSS as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶66

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 675/2019 dated 30^th October, 2019, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Ranhola, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶67

The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement.

¶68

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with any pending application(s).

¶69

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶70

DECEMBER 9, 2025/MK

¶71

W.P.(CRL) 4071/2025 Page 6 of 6

¶72

This is a digitally signed order.

¶73

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 11/12/2025 at 13:18:28

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of NCT of Delhi and 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

Sh Ravi Kumar Wadhwan @Nanhe Vs State of Govt of NCT of Delhi through SHO

Jamil Ahmed Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jyothimon Dethan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saurabh Sharma Vs State (Gnct of Delhi)

Mr. Arka Bhattacharya Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Saloni Badhwan & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Chander Prakash Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Ms. X Vs the State of Nct. of Delhi and Ors.

Salil Talwar Vs Sham Charan Arora

Sh Ravi Kumar Wadhwan @Nanhe Vs State of Govt of NCT of Delhi through SHO

Mohd. Yamin & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Umesh @ Kala Vs State NCT of Delhi

Kamal Singh @ Langda Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Hukum Chand Ravi @ Ravi Vs State NCT of Delhi