Mr. M.N Dudeja, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocates v. STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR

CRL.M.C. 6397/2025 & CRL.M.C. 6412/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~28 & 29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6397/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27011/2025 DANISH CHOUDHARY & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. M.N Dudeja, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State + CRL.M.C. 6412/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27056/2025 DANISH CHOUDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.N Dudeja, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 24.09.2025 1. These petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seek quashing of two FIRs i.e., FIR No. 523/2021 (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 6412/2025) and FIR No. 378/2022 (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 6397/2025), both registered at P.S. Geeta Colony. The 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 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 08/10/2025 at 12:42:14 CRL.M.C. 6397/2025 & CRL.M.C. 6412/2025 Page 2 of 5 first FIR dated 21st September, 2021, has been registered under Sections 313/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, while the second FIR dated 18th July, 2022, pertains to offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC. The petitions are premised on a purported compromise between the Petitioners and the complainant, Heena. 2. The prosecution case in FIR No. 523/2021, rests on the allegation that upon disclosing her pregnancy to her husband on 4th September, 2021, the complainant’s in-laws conspired to terminate it. On 9th September, 2021, at about 10:00 AM, complainant’s sisters-in-law, Wazda and Majda, restrained her by holding her hands, her mother-in-law, Sayra Chaudhary, forced open her mouth, and her father-in-law, Yawar Ali, handed over water, thereby enabling her husband, Danish, to forcibly administer abortion pills against her will. Further, on 13th September, 2021, at around 9:00-10:00 PM, during a quarrel, the husband is alleged to have kicked her forcefully in the abdomen. As a result of the forcible administration of pills and physical assault, the complainant suffered severe abdominal pain and bleeding, and subsequently a miscarriage. On the basis of her statement, FIR No. 523/2021 was registered under Sections 313/34 IPC. By order dated 17th July, 2023, the Trial Court framed charges solely against the husband, Danish Chaudhary, under Sections 323/313 IPC. 3. FIR No. 378/2022 concerns allegations of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles. The complainant alleges that her marriage with Petitioner No. 1 was solemnised on 16th February, 2017, and at the time of vidaai on 7th April, 2017, her family gave dowry articles and valuables worth about INR 50 lakhs to the Petitioners. It is alleged that 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 08/10/2025 at 12:42:14 CRL.M.C. 6397/2025 & CRL.M.C. 6412/2025 Page 3 of 5 immediately thereafter, the Petitioners began demanding a residential flat in addition to the dowry already given, and subjected her to harassment, taunts, confinement, denial of medical care and threats of divorce when their demand was not met. She further states that during her pregnancy, she was forcibly administered medicines to terminate it and was physically assaulted by Petitioner No. 1, leading to her hospitalisation and subsequent registration of FIR No. 523/2021 at P.S. Geeta Colony. She further alleges that she was thereafter denied entry into her matrimonial home, deprived of custody of her minor daughter, and that her dowry articles, documents, and jewellery were unlawfully retained or disposed of by the Petitioners. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No. 378/2022 was registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC. 4. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations in both FIRs, the Court has interacted with the complainant, who is present in person, to satisfy itself about the genuineness and voluntariness of the purported settlement. In open court, the complainant described sustained physical and mental cruelty, stated that she had been driven to the brink of self-harm, and alleged that, during pregnancy, she was subjected to a forced abortion. 5. In light of the above, without commenting on the ultimate veracity of these assertions (which is to be ascertained at trial), the Court records that the complainant did not evince either willingness to condone the acts complained of or a free and informed desire to bring the prosecution to an end. The purported compromise does not inspire confidence as a fair and voluntary basis to terminate the criminal proceedings emanating from the two FIRs. 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 08/10/2025 at 12:42:14 CRL.M.C. 6397/2025 & CRL.M.C. 6412/2025 Page 4 of 5 6. The legal position is well settled. The inherent jurisdiction to quash on the basis of a settlement is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly4. Courts have consistently cautioned that such power cannot be invoked as a matter of course, particularly where the offences are grave,5 bear a significant impact on society, or involve acts of violence against women. Where the allegations disclose serious offences, continuation of prosecution cannot be curtailed merely because the parties have reached an accord. The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS) is intended to prevent miscarriage of justice, not to legitimise settlements that may trivialise grave wrongdoing. The crimes which outrage dignity or bodily autonomy cannot be treated as private disputes to be settled inter se. Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent) carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment; it implicates bodily integrity and public morality and is not a mere personal wrong. 7. Applying these principles, this is not a case for interdicting prosecution. First, the allegations under Section 313 IPC are specific and serious. Second, the Trial Court has already found a prima facie case and framed charges against the husband under Sections 313/323 IPC, which is a relevant consideration against premature termination. Third, even assuming some matrimonial facets overlap (as alleged in the second FIR No. 378/2022), the presence of the offence under Section 313 IPC, an offence against the person and society, militates against severing or sanitising the prosecution through partial quashing. The Court will not conduct a mini-trial under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), nor supplant 4 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688). 5 See: Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (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 08/10/2025 at 12:42:14 CRL.M.C. 6397/2025 & CRL.M.C. 6412/2025 Page 5 of 5 proof with a fragile settlement that the complainant herself does not own. 8. However, it is clarified that nothing in this order shall preclude the complainant or the prosecution from pursuing all permissible steps in accordance with law during trial; equally, the accused shall remain entitled to avail of every defence available to them under law. The observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petitions and shall not influence the merits of the trial in any manner. 9. In the result, the prayer to quash FIR No. 523/2021 and FIR No. 378/2022 on the basis of the purported settlement is declined. 10. The petitions are dismissed along with any pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2025/ab