Ravinder Khatri, Mr. Rajesh, Mr. Chandrakant, Advocates with v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

CRL.M.C. 3515/2025 Page 1 of 7 $~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3515/2025 & CRL.M.A. 15497/2025 MR ANIL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. C.S Dahiya, Mr. Ravinder Khatri, Mr. Rajesh, Mr. Chandrakant, Advocates with Petitioner in person versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State with WSI Purvi, SI Bhom Singh, PS Tilak Nagar Mr. Akshay Utwar, Advocate for R-2 with Complainant in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 26.05.2025 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 539/2021, registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, at P.S. Tilak Nagar, Delhi, as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. This request is made in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties, as evidenced by the Settlement recorded by the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 27th May, 2024, between Petitioner No. 1 and 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 30/05/2025 at 13:15:20 CRL.M.C. 3515/2025 Page 2 of 7 Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant). A copy of the aforementioned Settlement order has been duly placed on record. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant). The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 11th December, 2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child was born from the said marriage, who is in the custody of Respondent No. 2. However, due to temperamental differences and matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they separated in 2016. 3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with the Crime Against Women Cell, Kirti Nagar, against the Petitioner, alleging that she was subjected to domestic violence, cruelty and dowry harassment by them, which culminated into the impugned FIR. 4. The parties with the intervention of friends and family members have resolved their disputes amicably in proceedings before the Delhi Mediation Centre, on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. The terms of the settlement between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have been recorded by the Mediation Centre through order dated 27th May, 2024 in Ct. Case No. 978/2022. As per the terms of the settlement, the Petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of INR 7 Lakhs, along with jewellery to Respondent No. 2 for full and final settlement of all her claims including alimony and maintenance (past, present future). It has also been agreed that the custody of the minor child shall remain with Respondent No. 2 (her mother) and there shall be no visitation rights of Petitioner or his family members. 5. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 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 30/05/2025 at 13:15:20 CRL.M.C. 3515/2025 Page 3 of 7 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent through order dated 08th January, 2025 issued by the Family Courts, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 6. On 19th May, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded before the Joint Registrar of this Court, wherein she confirmed that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved as per the mediation settlement recorded vide order dated 27th May, 2024. She further confirmed the receipt of a demand draft bearing DD No. 000118, for the sum of INR 4,00,000/- drawn on UCO Bank dated 25th April, 2025, as the final instalment of the payment to be made as per the settlement between the parties. She has stated that subject to realisation of the DD, she would have no objections to quashing of the subject FIR against the Petitioner. Moreover, as per the settlement, she has undertaken to prepare an FDR for a sum of INR 4,00,000/-, in favour of the minor child and use the amount accrued thereon for the benefit and welfare of the rights and interests of the minor child. 7. On the same day, the statement of the Petitioner was also recorded before the Joint Registrar wherein he has also confirmed the settlement. Both parties have stated that the aforementioned settlement between them is without prejudice to the rights and interests of the minor child, as the child would be free to have recourse to the provisions of law in terms of seeking maintenance, educational expenses etc., as per the judgement of this Court in Rakesh Jain v. Sarita Gupta. 8. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court, confirms her statement made to the Court and gives no objection to 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 30/05/2025 at 13:15:20 CRL.M.C. 3515/2025 Page 4 of 7 the quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect is also on record. 9. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. 10. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 582 of BNSS (corresponding to 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.,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. 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. 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 30/05/2025 at 13:15:20 CRL.M.C. 3515/2025 Page 5 of 7 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] 11. 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. 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 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 30/05/2025 at 13:15:20 CRL.M.C. 3515/2025 Page 6 of 7 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 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 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 30/05/2025 at 13:15:20 CRL.M.C. 3515/2025 Page 7 of 7 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] 12. 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 any longer and as such, the continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 13. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 539/2021, registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC, at P.S. Tilak Nagar, Delhi, as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 14. Parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement recorded by the Mediation Centre on 27th May, 2024. 15. It is made clear that the said settlement shall not compromise the rights and interests of the minor child, as available under law. 16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 26, 2025/ab