Allowed¶71

Gursimran Singh Bajaj & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC22 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./4829/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court quashing of FIR on matrimonial settlement; inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC); non-compoundable offences Sections 498A, 406, 354, 377, 34 IPC; compoundability under Section 320 CrPC; MOU dated 07.02.2025; divorce by mutual consent; complainant/wife unwilling to pursue proceedings; remote possibility of conviction; abuse of process; reliance on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; CRL.M.C. 4829/2025.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 162/2022 registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed. ¶71

Gursimran Singh Bajaj & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 162/2022 registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 162/2022 registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar (offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, chargesheet under Sections 377/354/498A/406/34 IPC) and all consequential proceedings ought to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, notwithstanding that offences under Sections 354/377 IPC are serious and non-compoundable.

¶15

Court's answer

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

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Offences under Sections 354/377 IPC are serious in nature, are not private in nature, and cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute.

¶62

Key takeaways

The present case arises out of matrimonial disputes, the allegation of unnatural sex having been made by the wife against the husband, and the parties have decided to part ways and move ahead burying their acrimony.ratio¶63
In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is unlikely that the FIR will result in a conviction since Respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the case; continuation would cause ill will to fester and undue harassment to Respondent No. 2.ratio¶65
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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J.) allowed CRL.M.C. 4829/2025 and quashed FIR No. 162/2022 dated 24.01.2022 (PS Tilak Nagar), registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC with a chargesheet under Sections 377/354/498A/406/34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings. The parties married on 07.03.2021, later separated, and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent; the dispute was settled by Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.02.2025 (total settlement ₹3,15,000/-, balance ₹1,00,000/- paid in Court by Demand Draft). While acknowledging that offences under Sections 354/377 IPC are serious, non-compoundable and not private in nature, and cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled, the Court held that this case arose out of matrimonial disputes with the allegation made by the wife against the husband; Respondent No. 2 stated she did not wish to pursue the proceedings, conviction was unlikely, and continuance would cause ill will, harassment and amount to abuse of the process of Court. Following Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, and earlier decisions of this Court (Dinesh Kumar; Anmol Katyal; Gajender Singh; Joginder Singh Bote), the Court exercised its discretionary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) to quash the FIR.

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶4

GURSIMRAN SINGH BAJAJ & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Murari Tiwari, Mr. Kamal Nayan Tiwari & Mr. Vedang Khera, Advs. along with all the four petitioners.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State.

¶7

SI Shweta, PS Tilak Nagar.

¶8

Mr. Harsh Vardhan Sharma, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

¶9

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

¶10

% 22.07.2025

¶11

CRL.M.A. 20933/2025 ( exemption )

¶12

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶15

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 162/2022 dated 24.01.2022, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶16

Chargesheet has been filed in the present case under Sections 377/354/498A/406/34 of the IPC.

¶17

It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and

¶18

CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶19

Page 1 of 7

¶20

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 06/08/2025 at 11:54:58

¶21

Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 07.03.2021 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. 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 to 4 are the family members of Petitioner No. 1.

¶22

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against Petitioner No. 1 and his family members alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and demands of dowry by them. It is further alleged that Petitioner No.1 had forceful unnatural sex with Respondent No. 2. Pursuant to a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 the present FIR was registered.

¶23

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.02.2025, out of their own free will, without any fear, coercion, or undue influence. Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner No.1 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶24

As per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.02.2025, out of the total settlement amount of ₹3,15,000/-, balance amount of ₹1,00,000/- has been handed over to Respondent No. 2 in Court today by way of Demand Draft No. 327913 dated 03.07.2025, drawn on Canara Bank.

¶25

The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 10. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed.

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶28

¶29

Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Sections 498A/354/377 of the IPC are non-compoundable.

¶30

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 (‘ CrPC ’)] can quash offences which are non-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 :-

¶31

“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:

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶37

¶38

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.

¶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

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 :-

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

Page 4 of 7

¶47

CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶48

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences

¶57

Page 5 of 7

¶58

CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶59

¶60

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.”

¶61

(emphasis supplied)

¶62

It is not in doubt that the offences under Sections 354/377 of the IPC are serious in nature. The same cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences, in true sense, are not private in nature.

¶63

The present case, however, arises out of matrimonial disputes and the allegation of unnatural sex had been made by the wife against the husband. The parties have now decided to part ways and move ahead in their lives by burying the acrimony they had against each other.

¶64

This Court, in cases of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr. : CRL.M.C.830/2019 , Anmol Katyal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. : CRL.M.C.1613/2019 , Gajender Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. : CRL.M.C. 5216/2018 and Joginder Singh Bote & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Anr. : CRL.M.C. 4117/2018 , while exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC, had quashed the FIRs registered for offences under Section 377 of the IPC on the basis of compromise entered into between the husband and the wife.

¶65

In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such a case, in the opinion of this Court, continuation of the proceedings would only cause ill

¶66

Page 6 of 7

¶67

CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶68

¶69

will to fester between the parties and cause undue harassment to Respondent No.2.

¶70

Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the fact 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.

¶71

In view of the above, FIR No.162/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶72

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶73

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶74

JULY 22, 2025 “SK”

¶75

Page 7 of 7

¶76

CRL.M.C. 4829/2025

¶77

This is a digitally signed order.

¶78

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 06/08/2025 at 11:54:58

Gursimran Singh Bajaj & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gursimran Singh Bajaj & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & 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

Intec Capital Limited Vs Mohasin Baig

Smt. Harjeet Kaur Chowdhary Vs M/S Dashmesh Arts (India) Ltd. & Ors.

Thomas Cook India Ltd. Vs M/S Taurus Global Travel Management Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Baljeet Singh @ Boni Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ashish Aggarwal Vs Sharvan Kumar Wadhwa

Rajkumar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi