Babu Ram Vs the State NCT of Delhi

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 250/2011 dated 17.06.2011, registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

¶11

Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶12

The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of the

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

CRL.M.C. 4158/2025

¶16

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 06/02/2026 at 12:28:05

¶17

complainant/respondent No. 2, who was the wife of the petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner No. 1 and the complainant were married on 23.05.2004. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 22.07.2007. 6. The complainant lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Rohini, Delhi, on 30.10.2009 against her husband, i.e., the petitioner, and his family members alleging persistent dowry demands, physical assaults, mental cruelty, and threats to her life. Based on the said complaint, the present FIR was registered on 17.06.2011. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and charges were subsequently framed against the present petitioner under sections 498A/406, IPC, by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), District North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 01.12.2023. 7. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. The complainant, who is present in person, is not represented by any counsel and declines the assistance of a legal aid counsel, and is also identified by the IO. 8. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and respondent No.2 in person, submit that the parties had settled all their disputes amicably on 30.11.2011, and obtained a divorce from the Judge, Family Court, District North West, Rohini, Delhi, on 28.02.2019 [in HMA Petition No. 511/2019]. They confirm that the settlement had been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 9. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

CRL.M.C. 4158/2025

¶21

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 06/02/2026 at 12:28:05

¶22

Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is noncompoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

¶23

The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ has held as follows:

¶24

“ 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the

¶25

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

CRL.M.C. 4158/2025

¶28

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 06/02/2026 at 12:28:05

¶29

High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed. ”²

¶30

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.³ , the Supreme Court has also 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:

¶31

“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:

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

2 Emphasis supplied.

¶37

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

CRL.M.C. 4158/2025

¶40

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 06/02/2026 at 12:28:05

¶41

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.

¶42

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 .

¶43

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.”⁴

¶44

In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the complainant has also categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.

¶45

The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by petitioner to the respondent No. 2, who states before the Court that the entire settlement amount has already been received by her. There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.

¶46

4 Emphasis supplied.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

CRL.M.C. 4158/2025

¶49

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 06/02/2026 at 12:28:05

¶50

Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 250/2011 dated 17.06.2011, registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, Outer District, Delhi, under Section 498A/406 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶51

The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

¶52

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶53

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶54

FEBRUARY 2, 2026 SS/JM/

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

CRL.M.C. 4158/2025

¶57

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 06/02/2026 at 12:28:05

Babu Ram v. the State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Ram v. the State NCT of Delhi

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

Afsar Pasha Vs National Investigation Agency through Its Director

Arvind Sharma and Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Saleem Ul Rehman @Wasim Vs State NCT of Delhi

V3S Infratech Ltd. and Ors. Vs Anurag Singh & Ors.

Vishnu Tiwari Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Pravin Goyal & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.