Allowed¶¶68

Suresh Rai and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Quashing of FIR – matrimonial dispute – Sections 498A/34 IPC

Delhi HC2 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./4751/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 4751/2025, Delhi High Court, decided 02.09.2025 by Justice Amit Mahajan; quashing of FIR No. 1046/2023 PS Wazirabad (Sections 498A/34 IPC) on amicable settlement dated 01.07.2024 before Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari; divorce decree; settlement amount ₹10,00,000/-; Section 528 BNSS; erstwhile Section 482 CrPC; non-compoundable offence quashed on compromise; reliance on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; no observation on legality of settlement or minor child custody.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 1046/2023 registered at Police Station Wazirabad and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending applications disposed of ¶¶68

Suresh Rai and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 1046/2023 registered at Police Station Wazirabad and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending applications disposed of

¶¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 1046/2023 (Sections 498A/34 IPC) and all consequential proceedings may be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), notwithstanding that the offence is non-compoundable, on the ground that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

¶¶22

Court's answer

The High Court exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) can quash even non-compoundable offences on the ground of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, guided by the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

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

¶¶64

Key takeaways

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¶¶66
Clarified that the legal rights of the minor child will not be affected, in any manner whatsoever, by the present order.obiter¶¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR – matrimonial dispute – Sections 498A/34 IPC – settlement between parties. Petition under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) sought quashing of FIR No. 1046/2023, PS Wazirabad. Marriage of 30.01.2018; disputes led to complaint of cruelty and the FIR. Matter amicably settled before Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts on 01.07.2024 out of free will; parties obtained a decree of divorce; entire settlement amount of ₹10,00,000/- paid to Respondent No. 2 (₹8,00,000/- earlier and balance ₹2,00,000/- by demand draft), who confirmed receipt and raised no objection to quashing. Though offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the High Court held it well settled that under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC non-compoundable offences may be quashed on compromise, following Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 – criminal cases arising out of matrimonial/family disputes having predominantly civil character ought to be quashed when parties resolve their disputes. Continuance held to be abuse of process; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed. Court expressly did not examine legality of the settlement or custody rights relating to the minor child, whose legal rights remain unaffected. Petition allowed.

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4751/2025 SURESH RAI AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶4

Through: P1 in person

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents

¶7

Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State SI Ali Akram, PSWazirabad R2 in person

¶8

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

¶9

% 02.09.2025

¶10

CRL.M.A. 20597/2025 (for exemption)

¶11

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 4751/2025

¶14

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 1046/2023 dated 17.11.2023, registered at Police Station Wazirabad, for offences under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶15

It is averred that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 30.01.2018, as per Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies. One male child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties.

¶16

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against Petitioner No. 1 and his family members, alleging that she was

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

CRL.M.C. 4751/2025

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 08/09/2025 at 11:55:25

¶21

subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the present FIR. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the family members of Petitioner No. 1.

¶22

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 01.07.2024, 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.

¶23

In terms of the Settlement dated 01.07.2024, out of the entire settlement amount of ₹10,00,000/-, a sum of ₹8,00,000/already stands paid to Respondent No. 2 and the balance amount of ₹2,00,000/- is handed over to Respondent No. 2 by way of a demand draft bearing no. 023189 dated 11.07.2025 drawn on HDFC Bank. 8. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 9. 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. 10. Offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable. 11. 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

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

CRL.M.C. 4751/2025

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 08/09/2025 at 11:55:25

¶28

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 :-

¶29

“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:

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶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 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

CRL.M.C. 4751/2025

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 08/09/2025 at 11:55:25

¶39

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.”

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

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 :-

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

Page 4 of 6

¶49

CRL.M.C. 4751/2025

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

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 08/09/2025 at 11:55:25

¶52

no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

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.”

¶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

¶60

Page 5 of 6

¶61

CRL.M.C. 4751/2025

¶62

This is a digitally signed order.

¶63

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 08/09/2025 at 11:55:25

¶64

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.

¶65

In view of the above, FIR No. 1046/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶66

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the legality of the settlement or any right in relation to the custody of the minor child.

¶67

It is also clarified that the legal rights of the minor child will not be affected, in any manner, whatsoever by the present order.

¶68

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶69

Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

¶70

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶71

SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 “SS”

¶72

Page 6 of 6

¶73

CRL.M.C. 4751/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 08/09/2025 at 11:55:25

Suresh Rai and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Rai and Ors. v. 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

Ashok Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ashwani Kumar @ Ankur and Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Sucherndra Singh Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Sunil Dutt & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kamar Alam & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kushagra Garg and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.