The Court allowed a petition to quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS in a matrimonial dispute, noting a settlement and divorce decree. The complainant confirmed the settlement was voluntary. The FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed.
FIR no. 483/2022 and all consequential proceedings registered thereunder were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~56
GOVIND VERMA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Gulshan Jahan and Mr. Surya Kamal Mishra, Advs. along with petitioners in person versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State with SI Yashpal Singh and SI Satish Kumar, PS Farsh Bazar Complainant in person
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 06.08.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”) [earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC.”)] has been filed on behalf of the petitioners praying for quashing of FIR bearing no. 483/2022, registered at Police Station, Farsh Bazar for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2 got solemnized on 17.06.2010 at Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, due to some temperamental differences between them, they started living separately in the year 2019. They are succeeded by to children.
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 11/08/2025 at 12:14:15
3. Despite several efforts of reconciliation, both the parties could not settle their differences, pursuant to which respondent no. 2 got FIR no. 483/2022 registered.
4. However, at this stage, with the intervention of family members and relatives, both the parties have entered into a settlement on 08.05.2025 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma, Shahadara, Delhi. The terms and conditions of the said settlement are mentioned in the settlement deed which is annexed as Annexure P-2 to the petition. Prior to the said settlement, the parties moved for divorce under Section 13B (1) and under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter “HMA”) and accordingly, a divorce decree dated 24.04.2025 was passed by the Court concerned.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that respondent no.2 has settled all her claims in respect of her dowry articles, stridhan , marriage expenses, jewelries, gift items and claims of past, present and future maintenance and permanent alimony with the petitioners for a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- and all disputes of any nature whatsoever, out of which the remaining amount of ₹1,50,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR.
6. At this juncture, the respondent no. 2 submitted that she has received the entire amount of the settlement deed.
7. It is, thus, prayed that the instant FIR be quashed on the basis of settlement deed dated 08.05.2025.
8. Learned APP submits that there is no opposition to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
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 11/08/2025 at 12:14:15
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The petitioners are present before this Court and have been identified by their counsel, Ms. Gulshan Jahan, and the Investigating Officer SI Yashpal Singh and SI Satish Kumar, Police Station Farsh Bazar. Respondent no. 2 is also present in the Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
11. The instant criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, especially considering the existence of a settlement/compromise between the parties.
12. In such cases, it is settled law that High Court is also required to consider the conduct and antecedents of the accused in order to ascertain that the settlement has been entered into by her own free will and has not been imposed upon her by the petitioner or any person related to him.
13. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. , (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS, can be exercised by the Courts to quash the criminal proceedings featuring noncompoundable offences, when the matter arises out of matrimonial or family disputes. Moreover, it is pertinent to satisfy the Court that the said noncompoundable offences are private in nature and does not have a serious impact on the society.
14. Furthermore, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2021 INSC 568 , that the extraordinary power enjoined upon the High Courts under Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS can be invoked even
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 11/08/2025 at 12:14:15
when such a case falls within the ambit of non-compoundable offences given that the Court must be satisfied that the nature of the offence does not impact the consciousness of society and that the compromise between the parties is voluntary and amicable.
15. In the present case, the complainant/respondent no. 2 is present in Court and has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise and settled the entire disputes amicably with the petitioners by her own free will without any pressure or coercion. There is also no allegation from respondent no.2 that the conduct and antecedents of petitioners have been bad towards her after the compromise. As per the settlement, the respondent no. 2 has received the entire settled amount. Further, she submitted that she has no objection to the present FIR being quashed.
16. Therefore, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 483/2022, registered at Police Station, Farsh Bazar for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
17. It is made clear that the children born from the wedlock shall be entitled to assert their rights upon attaining the age of majority in accordance with law.
18. The petition along-with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J
AUGUST 6, 2025 gs/av
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 11/08/2025 at 12:14:15
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR can be quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
Whether the settlement was entered into by the complainant of her own free will without coercion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors.Relied on¶23
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Ramgopal and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶24
Ramgopal and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 INSC 568 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
GOVIND VERMA & ORS.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
AJAY DIGPAUL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
