Allowed¶10

Saurav Achwan & Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC4 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./5204/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court 2025 quashing of matrimonial FIR (No. 334/2019, P.S. Jaitpur) under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act via Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) on amicable settlement; Settlement Deed 18.12.2023; total INR 21,00,000/- (instalments of INR 7,00,000/- each incl. DD No. 008218 dated 04.08.2025, HDFC Bank); divorce by mutual consent 05.04.2024; complainant's no-objection; noncompoundable-offence quashing guidelines; reliance on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; petition allowed; pending application disposed; Justice Sanjeev Narula.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 334/2019, P.S. Jaitpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; parties to abide by the terms of settlement; pending application disposed of. ¶10

Saurav Achwan & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 334/2019, P.S. Jaitpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; parties to abide by the terms of settlement; pending application disposed of.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 334/2019, P.S. Jaitpur, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (offences noted by the Court as partly non-compoundable), may be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) in view of the amicable settlement between the parties and Respondent No. 2's no-objection.

¶1

Court's answer

This Court noted that offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DV Act are noncompoundable while offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases, framing the need to proceed via inherent quashing power rather than compounding.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Given the amicable settlement between the parties and the nature of the dispute, the Court opined the case was fit for exercise of 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.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Court quashed the impugned FIR No. 334/2019, P.S. Jaitpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, directed the parties to abide by the terms of settlement, allowed the petition, and disposed of the pending application.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court order (Sanjeev Narula, J., 04.08.2025) in CRL.M.C. 5204/2025 (& CRL.M.A. 22487/2025): FIR No. 334/2019, P.S. Jaitpur, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 arising from a matrimonial dispute, quashed under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) pursuant to a Settlement Deed dated 18.12.2023 (total INR 21,00,000/-; INR 7,00,000/- received at each divorce motion; final INR 7,00,000/- tendered in court via DD No. 008218 dated 04.08.2025, HDFC Bank), the mutual-consent divorce decree of 05.04.2024, and Respondent No. 2's in-person, IO-identified no-objection. The Court, noting the offences are (wholly or partly) noncompoundable, relied on the Supreme Court guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, held continuance would amount to abuse of process, quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, allowed the petition, disposed of the pending application, and directed the parties to abide by the settlement terms.

¶1

$~67

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 5204/2025 & CRL.M.A. 22487/2025

¶4

SAURAV ACHWAN & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Sharvan Kumar, Mr. Virender Nagar and Mr. Atul Verma, Advocates. Petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State. Insp. Satbir Singh, PS: Jaitpur. SI Subhash, PS: Khyala, Delhi. Mr. Amrik Singh, Mr. S. Chuphal, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 04.08.2025

¶9

The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks quashing of FIR No. 334/2019³ registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴ and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Jaitpur, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶10

1 “BNSS”

¶11

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶12

3 “the impugned FIR”

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

CRL.M.C. 5204/2025

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 08/08/2025 at 15:20:45

¶17

The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 20^th April, 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Parties have no child from the said marriage.

¶18

Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and parties started living separately since 28^th April, 2018. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail. 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.

¶19

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. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Deed dated 18^th December, 2023 before the Judge, Family Courts-I, Saket, (South-East), New Delhi, Counselling Cell and Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, whereby Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR 21,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2. As per the terms of the settlement, parties have 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 through order dated 05^th April, 2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Delhi.

¶20

Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms her statement made to the Court and gives no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She confirms that in terms of the Settlement Agreement, she received a sum of

¶21

4 “IPC”

¶22

Page 2 of 7

¶23

CRL.M.C. 5204/2025

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 08/08/2025 at 15:20:45

¶26

INR 7,00,000/- at the time of recording of first motion and INR 7,00,000/- at the stage of second motion for divorce. Additionally, in accordance with the Agreement, the Petitioners have tendered the balance amount by way of a demand draft bearing DD No. 008218 dated 4^th August, 2025 for an amount of INR 7,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank to Respondent No. 2 during the proceedings. The same has been duly received and acknowledged by Respondent no. 2. Copy of the DD has been handed over across the board and is taken on record. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶27

The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DV Act are noncompoundable while offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. 7. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), 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. ,⁵ 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

5 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

CRL.M.C. 5204/2025

¶32

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 08/08/2025 at 15:20:45

¶33

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.

¶34

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:

¶35

(i) ends of justice, or

¶36

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶37

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

¶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

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

¶43

Page 4 of 7

¶44

CRL.M.C. 5204/2025

¶45

¶46

& Anr. ,⁶ the Supreme Court had observed as under:

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶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

6 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶55

Page 5 of 7

¶56

CRL.M.C. 5204/2025

¶57

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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

¶61

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.”

¶62

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶63

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.

¶64

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 334/2019, P.S. Jaitpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 11. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.

¶65

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶66

Page 6 of 7

¶67

CRL.M.C. 5204/2025

¶68

This is a digitally signed order.

¶69

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 08/08/2025 at 15:20:45

¶70

Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶71

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶72

AUGUST 4, 2025 d.negi

¶73

Page 7 of 7

¶74

CRL.M.C. 5204/2025

¶75

Saurav Achwan & Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurav Achwan & Ors. 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

Arzoo.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Easy Trip Planners Ltd.

Chander Vibhash Vs State NCT of Delhi

Abhishek Kumar Vs Neha Lal

Amit Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi

Naresh Vs State & Ors.

Vir Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.