Delhi High Court · 2025

CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8089/2025, CRL.M.A. 33788/2025 & CRL.M.A. 33789/2025 KUSHAL NAWARIYA & ORS ......Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate along with Petitioner No. 1 in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ...Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 10.12.2025 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 169/2019, registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, and all proceedings emanating therefrom. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, whereby the offence under Section 506 IPC was also added. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, and Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are the in- laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30th November, 2017, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties have no child from this marriage. Owing to 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 2 of 6 matrimonial disputes and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately. 3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later culminated into the impugned FIR. 4. The parties state that they have amicably resolved their disputes and have entered into a settlement on 19th May, 2025 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. As per the terms of the settlement, parties have agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 6th September, 2025, passed by the Family Courts, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. 5. Respondent No. 2 appears in person before this Court, duly identified by the Investigating Officer, and states that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled. She affirms that the settlement dated 19th May, 2025 was arrived at voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion, and that in terms thereof, she has received the entire settled amount. She further states that subsequent to the settlement and receipt of the agreed amount, she was constrained to make a payment of INR 1,37,000/- to one Mr. Gajraj pursuant to threats extended by him. During the course of the present proceedings, the said Mr. Gajraj appeared and voluntarily returned the aforesaid amount to Respondent No. 2, which is duly acknowledged by her. Respondent No. 2 states that she has no surviving grievance of any nature against the Petitioners, that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and that she has no objection to the quashing of the 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 3 of 6 impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 6. Respondent No. 2 further states that she does not endorse the averments made in paragraph 5 of the petition and asserts that the FIR was lodged for bona fide reasons and not on account of any misunderstanding. Counsel for the Petitioners, in response, submits that the quashing of proceedings is not sought on the basis of the said averments but solely on the ground of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 7. The Court has considered the aforenoted facts, including the statements made by Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioners, and has perused the settlement arrived at between the parties. 8. Notably, the offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable, while the offences under Sections 406 and 506 IPC are compoundable in certain cases. However, it is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 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 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 4 of 6 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. 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: 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 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, 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 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 528 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 IR No. 169/2019, registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 12. The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with any pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 10, 2025/MK

CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8089/2025, CRL.M.A. 33788/2025 & CRL.M.A. 33789/2025 KUSHAL NAWARIYA & ORS ......Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate along with Petitioner No. 1 in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ...Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 10.12.2025 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 169/2019, registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, and all proceedings emanating therefrom. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, whereby the offence under Section 506 IPC was also added. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, and Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are the in- laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30th November, 2017, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties have no child from this marriage. Owing to 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 2 of 6 matrimonial disputes and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately. 3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later culminated into the impugned FIR. 4. The parties state that they have amicably resolved their disputes and have entered into a settlement on 19th May, 2025 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. As per the terms of the settlement, parties have agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 6th September, 2025, passed by the Family Courts, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. 5. Respondent No. 2 appears in person before this Court, duly identified by the Investigating Officer, and states that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled. She affirms that the settlement dated 19th May, 2025 was arrived at voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion, and that in terms thereof, she has received the entire settled amount. She further states that subsequent to the settlement and receipt of the agreed amount, she was constrained to make a payment of INR 1,37,000/- to one Mr. Gajraj pursuant to threats extended by him. During the course of the present proceedings, the said Mr. Gajraj appeared and voluntarily returned the aforesaid amount to Respondent No. 2, which is duly acknowledged by her. Respondent No. 2 states that she has no surviving grievance of any nature against the Petitioners, that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and that she has no objection to the quashing of the 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 3 of 6 impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 6. Respondent No. 2 further states that she does not endorse the averments made in paragraph 5 of the petition and asserts that the FIR was lodged for bona fide reasons and not on account of any misunderstanding. Counsel for the Petitioners, in response, submits that the quashing of proceedings is not sought on the basis of the said averments but solely on the ground of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 7. The Court has considered the aforenoted facts, including the statements made by Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioners, and has perused the settlement arrived at between the parties. 8. Notably, the offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable, while the offences under Sections 406 and 506 IPC are compoundable in certain cases. However, it is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 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 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 4 of 6 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. 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: 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 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, 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 16/12/2025 at 12:32:50 CRL.M.C. 8089/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 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 528 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 IR No. 169/2019, registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 12. The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with any pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 10, 2025/MK