Delhi High Court · 2025

CRL.M.C. 3099/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3099/2025 VISHAL KAUSHIK & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Dr. Alok, Mr. Siddharth Narang, Mr. Dhananjay Mittal, Mr. Mayank Deswal, Ms. Shivani, Ms. Smriti Walia and Mr. Rohit, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Sharmishtha Mitra, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with Mr. Sidharth, SI, PS-Hauz Khas. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 29.05.2025 1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita1 (earlier Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR. No. 284/2018 dated 26th October, 2018, registered at P.S. Hauz Khas, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,3 as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. This prayer is made in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties, as evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding/ Agreement of Settlement executed on 16th August, 2024, 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “IPC” 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 31/05/2025 at 14:59:10 CRL.M.C. 3099/2025 Page 2 of 6 between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2/Complainant. A copy of the aforementioned Settlement Agreement has been duly placed on record. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30th January, 2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child was born from the said marriage. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately. 3. 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. 4. Although a chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioners, the parties have amicably settled their disputes of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. A Settlement Deed dated 16th August, 2024, has been executed between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. As per the terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various courts. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have also obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 20th March, 2025, passed by the Family Court, South District, Saket, New Delhi. 5. On 5th May, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded before the Joint Registrar wherein she verified that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and she confirmed receiving a demand draft dated 1st May, 2025 for a sum of INR 10,00,000/- and gave her no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 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 31/05/2025 at 14:59:10 CRL.M.C. 3099/2025 Page 3 of 6 6. 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 this Court and identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms her statement made to the Court and gives no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect is also on record. 7. 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. 8. However, it is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 582 of BNSS (formerly 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: “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: 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. 4 (2014) 6 SCC 466 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 31/05/2025 at 14:59:10 CRL.M.C. 3099/2025 Page 4 of 6 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. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 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. 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. 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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 9. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,5 the Supreme Court had observed as under: “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 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. 5 (2017) 9 SCC 641 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 31/05/2025 at 14:59:10 CRL.M.C. 3099/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 non-compoundable. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if 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 31/05/2025 at 14:59:10 CRL.M.C. 3099/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 10. 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 582 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. 11. In view of the above, the impugned FIR. No. 284/2018 dated 26th October, 2018, registered at P.S. Hauz Khas, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 12. The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement. 13. It is clarified that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the minor child. 14. Present petition is disposed of along with pending application. SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 29, 2025/nk