Matrimonial FIR for cruelty and dowry offences quashed under Section 528 BNSS following a settlement between husband and wife, payment of the balance settled amount, and a mutual divorce decree; complainant affirmed the compromise was voluntary.
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.
$~85
ROHIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Kr. Gautam, Mr. Rohit Gupta and Mr. Mukul Yadav, Advs. Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Advs. SI Bhramprakash, PS Raj Park Ms. Swapna Bhattacharya and Ms. Meenakshi Bisht, Advs. for R-2 along with R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
1. The instant 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 petitioner praying for the quashing of FIR No. 81/2024, registered at Police Station Raj Park, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”).
2. The brief facts concerning the present dispute are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 16.11.2021, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, due to some
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 22/12/2025 at 12:09:19
temperamental differences between them, shortly after their marriage, they started living separately.
3. Despite efforts of reconciliation, both the parties could not settle their differences, pursuant to which respondent no. 2 got FIR No. 81/2024 registered. 4. However, at this stage, with the intervention of family members and relatives, both the parties have entered a settlement on 05.12.2024 before the concerned Family Courts, North West District, Rohini, Delhi. The terms and conditions of the said settlement are mentioned in the Settlement Deed which is annexed as “Annexure-5” to the petition. In pursuance of the said settlement, the parties have jointly agreed that they shall move for divorce under Section 13B (1) and under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, a divorce decree dated 09.07.2025 was passed by the Court concerned.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 has settled all her claims in respect of her dowry articles, stridhan , marriage expenses, jewelleries, gift items and claims of past, present and future maintenance and permanent alimony with the petitioner and all disputes of any nature whatsoever for a sum of ₹2,50,000/-, out of which a remaining amount of ₹1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR.
6. At this juncture, the petitioner has handed over a Demand Draft bearing No. 782676 dated 09.12.2025 for the balance amount of ₹1,00,000/in the name of respondent no. 2 today in the Court. Respondent no. 2 has verified the particulars of the Demand Draft to her satisfaction and stated them to be correct.
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 22/12/2025 at 12:09:19
7. It is, thus, prayed that the instant FIR be quashed on the basis of Settlement Deed dated 05.12.2024.
8. Learned APP for the State, who appears on advance notice, accepts notice and submits that there is no opposition to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The petitioner is present before this Court and has been identified by his counsel and the Investigating Officer, Police Station Raj Park. Respondent no. 2 is also present in the Court and has been identified by her counsel and the concerned Investigating Officer.
11. The instant criminal proceedings concern non-compoundable offences that are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, especially considering that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the accused.
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 v. 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 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 non-
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 22/12/2025 at 12:09:19
compoundable offences are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.
14. Furthermore, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Ors. v. 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 when such a case falls within the ambit of non-compoundable offences, given that the Court is satisfied that the nature of the offence does not impact the conscience 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 entirety of disputes with the petitioners amicably and of her own free will, without any pressure or coercion. There is also no allegation from respondent no. 2 that the conduct and antecedents of petitioner have been bad towards her after entering into this compromise. As per the Compromise Deed, respondent no. 2 has received the entire settled amount. Further, she submits 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 No. 81/2024, registered at Police Station Raj Park, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed qua the present petitioner.
17. Children from the wedlock, if any, are free to assert their rights in accordance with law.
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 22/12/2025 at 12:09:19
18. The petition, along-with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J
DECEMBER 15, 2025/ AS/yr
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 22/12/2025 at 12:09:19
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 81/2024 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC could be quashed on the basis of the parties' settlement and divorce decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors.Relied on¶13
(2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Ramgopal and Ors. v. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶14
2021 INSC 568 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Rohit
State of NCT of Delhi
Respondent No. 2
AJAY DIGPAUL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
