Delhi High Court – Orders
Sunil Ahuja And Ors vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 28 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2608/2025 & CRL.M.A. 11703/2025
SUNIL AHUJA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jaikush Hoon and Ms. Archana
Hoon, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Manika
Vohra Aggarwal, Mr. Vikrant Chawla
and Mr. Mayank Chauhan, Advocates
for R-2 with R-2 (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 28.05.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732), seeks quashing of seeks quashing of FIR No. 18/2020
dated 20th February, 2020, registered under Sections 498A/406/323/377,
354/354C/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, at P.S. Roop Nagar and all
other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2
and 3 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 3, the father-in-
law of Respondent No. 2, deceased on 26 th April, 2021, and a copy of his
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 2608/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:29
death certificate has been annexed as Annexure P-2 to the petition. The
marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on
3rd November, 2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child was born
from the said marriage. However, due to matrimonial discord, the
relationship between the parties deteriorated. Several efforts for
reconciliation were made but to no avail.
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. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably
settled between the parties on their own free will, without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence and a Memorandum of Settlement executed on
6th June, 2024 has been executed by Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2.
As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw
all proceedings pending before various Courts. Further, as per the
settlement, the custody of the minor child shall rest with Petitioner No. 1,
who will be the sole guardian of the child, while Respondent No. 2 will have
visitation rights, as delineated in the agreement. Pursuant to the settlement,
Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2 have obtained a decree of divorce by
mutual consent through order dated 14th January, 2025 passed by the Family
Courts, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
5. On 22nd May, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded
before the Joint Registrar, wherein she affirmed that the disputes between
the parties had been amicably resolved, and expressed her willingness to
quash the FIR.
6. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly prayed for the
CRL.M.C. 2608/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:29
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
the quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect is also on
record.
7. Considering the fact that the allegations in the FIR also disclose an
offence under Section 377 IPC against Petitioner No. 1, and offences under
Sections 354 and 354C IPC against Petitioner No. 3, this Court specifically
queried Respondent No. 2 regarding her stand on the matter. In response,
she submitted that the said allegations were made due to a
misunderstanding, arising from the legal advice she had received at the
relevant time. She now unequivocally states that the aforesaid allegations are
incorrect, and were made solely on the basis of the said legal advice.
8. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offences
under Sections 498A/377/354/354C of the IPC are non-compoundable,
while the offence under Section 323 is compoundable by the person to
whom hurt is caused, and Section 406 by the owner of the property is
respect of which the breach of trust was committed and, with the permission
of the Court.
9. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers
under Section 582 of BNSS (formerly 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
CRL.M.C. 2608/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:29
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.
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
4
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 2608/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:29
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]
10. 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 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
5
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 2608/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:29
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 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]
11. At this juncture, it is imperative to underscore that this Court notes
with grave concern the invocation of Sections 377, 354 and 354C of the IPC
by the Complainant to level serious and heinous allegations against her
husband and his family members. The misuse of stringent penal provisions
to implicate the husband and his relatives in serious criminal offences in the
course of matrimonial disputes is a disturbing trend, which this Court
unequivocally condemns. The said approach undermines the sanctity of the
criminal justice system and dilutes the gravity of genuinely prosecutable
CRL.M.C. 2608/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:29
offences. However, taking into account that the parties have now amicably
resolved their disputes and have expressed their intent to move forward in
life, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by
directing the State to initiate legal proceedings against the Complainant.
12. Accordingly, considering that the parties have amicably entered into a
settlement, this Court is inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582
of BNSS to allow the petition, as keeping the dispute alive and continuance
of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
13. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. FIR No. 18/2020 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
14. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 28, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 2608/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:29