Allowed¶66

Lokesh Kumar and Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC24 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./4900/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on matrimonial settlement; inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC; non-compoundable offence under Section 498A IPC quashed on compromise; MOU dated 05.04.2025 between spouses; guidelines in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; abuse of process of Court; protection of minor child's rights; CRL.M.C. 4900/2025, decided 24.07.2025 by Sanjeev Narula, J.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 127/2024 dated 6th April, 2024, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom; parties directed to abide by the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.04.2025; settlement clarified not to impact the rights of the minor child; pending application disposed of. ¶66

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the accused and the complainant. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Considering the nature of the dispute (matrimonial), the amicable settlement between the parties, and their resumption of matrimonial life, the present case is fit for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive; continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶62

Key takeaways

The impugned FIR No. 127/2024 dated 6th April, 2024, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.ratio¶63
Parties shall abide by the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, and it is clarified that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the minor child.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J.) allowed CRL.M.C. 4900/2025, a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) by the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2 seeking quashing of FIR No. 127/2024 dated 06.04.2024 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi. The parties had amicably settled their matrimonial disputes by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.04.2025; Respondent No. 2, present in Court, confirmed the settlement, gave her no objection to quashing, and stated she had voluntarily returned to the matrimonial home. Relying on 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 although the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the inherent power can be exercised where there is a compromise, particularly in matrimonial disputes of predominantly civil character; since the parties had resumed matrimonial life, no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance would amount to abuse of the process of Court. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed; parties were directed to abide by the MOU; and it was clarified that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the minor child. Pending application disposed of.

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4900/2025 & CRL.M.A. 21224/2025

¶4

LOKESH KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Sanjit Kumar and Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocates with Petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State. SI Gayatri, Security Bapu Dham. R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R

¶10

% 24.07.2025

¶11

The present petition filed under 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. 127/2024 dated 6^th April, 2024, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2, while Petitioner No. 3 is her sister-in-law. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 04^th February, 2022, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

¶13

1 “BNSS”

¶14

2 “CrPC”

¶15

3 “IPC”

¶16

CRL.M.C. 4900/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 12:25:59

¶19

From this marriage, the couple has one child. However, due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately.

¶20

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the impugned FIR. Pursuant thereto, a chargesheet was filed, wherein the offence under Section 354 of IPC was added against the father-in-law of Respondent; however, he has since passed away and the proceedings against him stand abated.

¶21

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 05^th April, 2025, has been executed by the parties, whereby the Respondent No. 2 has agreed to give her no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. They have further agreed to reside together in the matrimonial home of the parties.

¶22

In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court, confirms the settlement to the Court and gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. In this regard, her Affidavit/No Objection Certificate is on record. She further states that she has voluntarily returned to her matrimonial home.

¶23

The Court has considered the aforenoted facts. Notably, the offences under Sections 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of CrPC

¶24

CRL.M.C. 4900/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 12:25:59

¶27

(corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS), 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: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

4 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶34

CRL.M.C. 4900/2025 Page 3 of 6

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 31/07/2025 at 12:25:59

¶37

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.

¶38

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.”

¶39

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶40

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

¶41

& Anr. ,⁵ the 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

¶47

5 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶48

CRL.M.C. 4900/2025 Page 4 of 6

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 31/07/2025 at 12:25:59

¶51

prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶52

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.

¶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] 8. Thus, considering the nature of dispute, the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement and have chosen to resume their

¶59

CRL.M.C. 4900/2025 Page 5 of 6

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

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 31/07/2025 at 12:25:59

¶62

matrimonial life with one another, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive. The continuance of the present proceedings would only amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶63

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 127/2024 dated 6^th April, 2024, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶64

Parties shall abide by the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.

¶65

It is clarified that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the minor child.

¶66

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶67

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶68

JULY 24, 2025 d.negi

¶69

CRL.M.C. 4900/2025 Page 6 of 6

¶70

This is a digitally signed order.

¶71

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 31/07/2025 at 12:25:59

Lokesh Kumar and Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Kumar and Ors. v. State 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. Bunty Vs Smt. Richa Wadhwa &Anr

Kamlesh Vs Priyanka Verma and Others

Anil Kumar Garg Vs State of N C T of Delhi & Ors.

Parimal Kumar Vs Sonia

Rajesh Kumar Vs State G N C T Delhi

Surinder Singh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.