Allowed¶13

Deepak Kumar @Deepak and Oths v. the State and Anr.

Delhi HC22 Jul 2025W.P.(CRL)/877/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: FIR No. 139/2019 (P.S. Sagarpur) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed; parties directed to abide by the terms of settlement noted in the decree for divorce by mutual consent. ¶13

Deepak Kumar @Deepak and Oths Vs the State and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 139/2019 (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Sagarpur) and all consequential proceedings should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS in view of the settlement between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 recorded in the decree of divorce by mutual consent.

¶1

Court's answer

Notably, offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

It is well-established that High Courts, in exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground of compromise between the accused and the complainant.

¶8

Key takeaways

Considering the nature of the dispute and the settlement between the parties, the Court held the case fit for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, since no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.ratio¶10
The impugned FIR No. 139/2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.ratio¶11
The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement as noted in the decree for divorce by mutual consent.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J., 22.07.2025) allowed W.P.(CRL) 877/2023 and quashed FIR No. 139/2019 (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Sagarpur) with all consequential proceedings, under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), founded on the settlement between husband-petitioner Deepak Kumar @Deepak and Respondent No. 2 (complainant Sonia), recorded in the Decree of Divorce by mutual consent dated 11.02.2022 passed by the District Court, Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan, whereby the complainant received INR 14,25,000/- as full and final settlement of maintenance claims and agreed to withdraw all cases against the petitioner's family members. Although Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the Court — 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) — held that a matrimonial dispute of essentially civil character, fully resolved between the parties, warrants quashing where continuation serves no purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Parties directed to abide by the settlement terms.

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 877/2023

¶4

DEEPAK KUMAR @DEEPAK AND OTHS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Ranjan Kumar and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE AND ANR .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates for the State. W/SI Vinod Kapoor, PS: Sagarpur.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 22.07.2025

¶11

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. 139/2019³ registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴ at P.S. Sagarpur and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2 to 8 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner

¶13

1 “BNSS”

¶14

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶15

3 “the impugned FIR”

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 877/2023

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶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 25/07/2025 at 12:19:47

¶20

No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 16^th April, 2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. There are no children from this marriage.

¶21

Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and parties have been living separately since 2017. 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.

¶22

The instant petition is based on a settlement reached between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, the terms of which have been duly recorded in the Decree of Divorce by mutual consent dated 11^th February, 2022, passed by the District Court, Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan. In the said judgment, it is expressly noted that the Complainant received a sum of INR 14,25,000/- as full and final settlement of all her claims for past, present and future maintenance. It is further recorded that pursuant to the settlement, the Complainant agreed to withdraw all cases filed against the family members of the Petitioner.

¶23

Since the Complainant was not joining the proceedings, this Court directed that notice be served on her through the SHO. A report has been received to the following effect:

¶24

“It is submitted that a Court Notice has been issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Wherein, it was mentioned that a Court Notice in respect of Respondent No. 2 .i.e. Sonia D/o Sh. Om Prakash Saini R/o RZ 47/271, Hans Park. Gali No. 8, West Sagarpur, New Delhi- 110046 through concerned SHO to serve the said notice to Respondent No. 2.

¶25

In this regard, it is submitted that the above said address has been visited by the beat staff, where present Smt. Pooja W/o Sh. Brij Bhushan found and who stated that the Respondent No. 2 Ms. Sonia D/o Sh. Om

¶26

4 “IPC”

¶27

W.P.(CRL) 877/2023

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

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 25/07/2025 at 12:19:47

¶30

Prakash Saini is her Sister-in-law (Nannad), who is not residing with them for last 6 years and is residing somewhere in Rajashtan actual address she does not know. Further, she stated that her Sister-in-law is a lawyer by profession and also provided her mobile's number .i.e. 9540409161. (Statement of Pooja attached herewith).

¶31

Further, sincere efforts were done and collected Respondent mobile number i.e. 9540409161 and telephonically contacted and asked her present address but she denied and reply that copy of notice sent to her whatsapp number. However, a copy of notice sent on her whatsapp mobile number i.e. 9540409161 as well as a copy affixed on given address.”

¶32

Despite service through the concerned SHO, as mentioned in the afore-mentioned report, the Complainant has chosen not to appear or participate in the proceedings. Nonetheless, Complainant’s affidavit giving her no-objection, accompanied by a copy of her identity proof, is already on record.

¶33

The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable while offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

¶34

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:

¶35

“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

¶36

5 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶37

W.P.(CRL) 877/2023

¶38

Page 3 of 7

¶39

¶40

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:

¶41

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.

¶42

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:

¶43

(i) ends of justice, or

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.”

¶49

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶50

W.P.(CRL) 877/2023

¶51

Page 4 of 7

¶52

¶53

9. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. ,⁶ the Supreme Court had observed as under:

¶54

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

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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

¶61

6 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶62

W.P.(CRL) 877/2023

¶63

Page 5 of 7

¶64

This is a digitally signed order.

¶65

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 25/07/2025 at 12:19:47

¶66

to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

¶69

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

¶70

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.”

¶71

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶72

Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have 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.

¶73