Disposed¶11

Deepak & Ors. v. the State ( Gnctd) and Ors. & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./5241/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of matrimonial FIR (Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC) after amicable settlement and mutual-consent divorce; inherent power under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC over non-compoundable offences; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 guidelines; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 propositions; settlement agreement; Delhi High Court, CRL.M.C., 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 651/2024 dated 28th August, 2024 (Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, P.S. Nangloi, Delhi) and all proceedings emanating therefrom; parties directed to abide by the terms of settlement. ¶11

Deepak & Ors. Vs the State ( Gnctd) and Ors. & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR No. 651/2024 (Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, P.S. Nangloi) and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties.

¶4

Court's answer

The offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable and under Section 406 IPC compoundable in certain cases, yet the High Court in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) can quash even non-compoundable offences where there is a compromise between accused and complainant.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Given the nature of the dispute (predominantly matrimonial/family) and the amicable settlement between the parties, the case is fit for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC); keeping the dispute alive serves no purpose and continuance would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶8

Key takeaways

The impugned FIR No. 651/2024 dated 28 August 2024, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Nangloi, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, stand quashed.ratio¶9
The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement, and the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.M.C. 5241/2025 (Delhi High Court, decided 05.08.2025; Sanjeev Narula, J.): Petition under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) by Deepak (husband) and his in-laws (Petitioners Nos. 2-6) seeking quashing of FIR No. 651/2024 dated 28.08.2024, P.S. Nangloi, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, arising from cruelty allegations by the wife (Respondent No. 2), married 17.12.2021. Parties amicably settled before the Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (Settlement Agreement dated 20.11.2024: INR 1,50,000 plus bike DL11K6201; mutual withdrawal of all proceedings); decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 17.03.2025; Respondent No. 2, identified by the IO, gave no objection and confirmed receipt of the balance INR 50,000. Relying on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, and noting Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the Court held the matrimonial-dispute case fit for exercise of inherent jurisdiction since continuance would amount to abuse of the process of Court; FIR and all emanating proceedings were quashed, parties directed to abide by the settlement, and the petition disposed of.

¶1

$~65

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 5241/2025

¶4

DEEPAK & ORS. ....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Tapashwar Vatsa, Mr. Varun Kumar, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Abhishek Mudgal and Mr. Gajender Sharma, Advocates. Petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE ( GNCTD) AND ORS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State. IO/SI Ajay Kumar, PS Nangloi, Delhi R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 05.08.2025

¶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. 651/2024 dated 28^th August, 2024, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ at P.S. Nangloi, Delhi and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2

¶13

1 “BNSS”

¶14

2 “CrPC”

¶15

3 “IPC”

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

CRL.M.C. 5241/2025

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 12/08/2025 at 12:34:50

¶20

to 6 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 17^th December, 2021 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. There is no child born from the said marriage. Due to matrimonial discord and differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately.

¶21

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the impugned FIR. 4. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 20^th November, 2024, under which Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR 1,50,000/- and one bike (DL11K6201), gifted at the time of marriage, to Respondent No. 2. As per the terms of the Agreement, the parties have undertaken to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. A copy of the Settlement has been duly placed on record. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent by order dated 17^th March, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. 5. 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 the Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer, affirms her statement before the Court and gives no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She further confirms that, during the proceedings, she has

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

CRL.M.C. 5241/2025

¶24

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 12/08/2025 at 12:34:50

¶25

received the balance amount of INR 50,000/- in cash, in accordance with the terms of the settlement, in the presence of the Petitioner’s family members and counsel. A receipt/undertaking to this effect has been taken on record.

¶26

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 Section 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:

¶27

“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:

¶28

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.

¶29

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:

¶30

4 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

CRL.M.C. 5241/2025

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶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

¶45

5 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶46

Page 4 of 6

¶47

CRL.M.C. 5241/2025

¶48

¶49

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

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

Page 5 of 6

¶58

CRL.M.C. 5241/2025

¶59

¶60

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.”

¶61

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶62

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 (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) 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.

¶63

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 651/2024 dated 28^th August, 2024, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Nangloi, Delhi and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶64

The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending applications(s), if any.

¶65

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶66

AUGUST 5, 2025 MK

¶67

Page 6 of 6

¶68

CRL.M.C. 5241/2025

¶69

Deepak & Ors. v. the State ( Gnctd) and Ors. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak & Ors. v. the State ( Gnctd) and Ors. & 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

Amit Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi

Naresh Vs State & Ors.

Vir Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Puneet Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers

Shri Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Sukhwinder Singh & Anr. Vs Labh Singh