Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv. with P-1 in person. P-2 & 3 (through VC) v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 1077/2022 dated 30.12.2022, registered at Police Station Model Town, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.

2. It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 02.12.2020 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:27.12.2025 16:48:22 CRL.M.C. 7689/2025 are the parents of Petitioner No.1.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against the petitioners alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them. It was further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 forcibly had unnatural sex with Respondent No.2. The same later culminated into the aforementioned FIR.

4. Chargesheet has been filed against Petitioner No. 1 for offences under Sections 498A/406/377/34 of the IPC and against Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC.

5. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.07.2025, on their own free will, without any force, coercion, pressure or undue influence. Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No.1 have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

6. It is stated that the entire settlement amount has already been paid to Respondent No. 2.

7. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are present in person in Court today whereas Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 have joined the proceedings through video conferencing. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

8. Respondent No. 2, on being asked, states that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR, and has no objection if the same are quashed.

9. Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:27.12.2025 16:48:22 CRL.M.C. 7689/2025 whereas offences under Sections 377/498A of the IPC are non- compoundable.

10. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash offences which are non- compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed 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 the criminal to continue with 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 settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: reached (i) ends of justice, or Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:27.12.2025 16:48:22 CRL.M.C. 7689/2025 (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 those arising out of character, particularly commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. to whether

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is the possibility of to examine as 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. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble 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: Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:27.12.2025 16:48:22 CRL.M.C. 7689/2025

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. the ground

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:27.12.2025 16:48:22 CRL.M.C. 7689/2025 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. criminal

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there cases which have an may be 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. commercial,

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise mercantile, transactions with an partnership or similar essentially civil in appropriate flavour may situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. financial,

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise the possibility of a between conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and the disputants,

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set 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)

12. It is not in doubt that the offence under Section 377 of IPC is serious in nature. The same cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such offence, in true sense, is not private in nature. Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:27.12.2025 16:48:22 CRL.M.C. 7689/2025

13. The present case, however, arises out of matrimonial disputes and the allegation of unnatural sex has been made by the wife against the husband. The parties have decided to part ways and move on in their lives burying the acrimony they had against each other.

14. This Court, in cases of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr. : CRL.M.C.830/2019, Anmol Katyal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. : CRL.M.C.1613/2019, Gajender Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. : CRL.M.C. 5216/2018 and Joginder Singh Bote & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Anr. : CRL.M.C. 4117/2018, while exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC had quashed the FIRs registered for offences under Section 377 of the IPC on the basis of compromise entered into between the husband and the wife.

15. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such a case, in the opinion of this Court, continuation of the proceedings would only cause ill will to fester between the parties and cause undue harassment to Respondent No.2.

16. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:27.12.2025 16:48:22 CRL.M.C. 7689/2025

17. In view of the above, FIR No. 1077/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. DECEMBER 23, 2025 (cid:145)KDK(cid:146) AMIT MAHAJAN, J Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:27.12.2025 16:48:22 CRL.M.C. 7689/2025