Delhi High Court – Orders
Hitesh Brahma & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3659/2025 & CRL.M.A. 16101/2025
HITESH BRAHMA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Mr. Sehaj
Kataria, Ms. Shreya Narayan,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
State with SI Sanjeet Rathee, PS
Malviya Nagar
Ms. Somya Shree, Advocate for R-2
along with R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 02.07.2025
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 FIR No. 646/2023 registered under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Malviya
Nagar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was
solemnized on 10th November, 2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
Twin children were born from the said marriage. However, due to
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 3659/2025 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 03/07/2025 at 21:40:38
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 Settlement Agreement dated 27th
February, 2025 has been executed by Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.
2, before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As per
the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all
proceedings pending before various Courts. Pursuant to the settlement,
Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by
mutual consent through order dated 28th April, 2025 passed by the Family
Courts, District South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
5. In terms of the Agreement for Settlement, Petitioner No. 1 had agreed
to pay a total sum of INR 1 Crore to Respondent No. 2. Of the said amount,
a sum of INR 34,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to Respondent No. 2 at the
time of quashing of the impugned FIR. In this regard, the Petitioners have
handed over a copy of the demand draft before this Court bearing DD No.
024237, for the sum of INR 34,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank dated 01st
July, 2025. The Demand Draft has been handed over to Respondent No. 2
today during the course of the proceedings, and a copy of the same is also
taken on record.
6. The Complainant, who has appeared before the Court in person and is
identified by her counsel as well as the Investigating Officer, has
CRL.M.C. 3659/2025 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 03/07/2025 at 21:40:38
unequivocally stated that she does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings.
She has confirmed that her decision to settle the matter is voluntary and
made without any undue influence or coercion. She has further confirmed
the receipt of the full and final settlement amount from the Petitioner, as per
the terms of the MoU executed between them. An affidavit to this effect is
also on record.
7. Petitioner Nos. 1-3 have also joined the proceedings in person and are
duly identified by the Investigating Officer. Petitioner No. 4, Mr. Puneet
Brahma, although not present in the Court, has filed an affidavit supporting
the petition. The Complainant has no grievance against Petitioner No. 4 as
well. Although the chargesheet has not been filed, the Court has been
apprised that during the course of investigation, only Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and
3 were bound down. In any event, the Complainant’s allegation qua
Petitioner No. 4 also stands satisfied. In light of the foregoing, counsel for
the parties jointly prayed for the quashing of the impugned FIR.
8. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence
under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable while offence under
Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.
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. 3659/2025 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 03/07/2025 at 21:40:38
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
4
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 3659/2025 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 03/07/2025 at 21:40:38
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]
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 serious5
(2017) 9 SCC 641CRL.M.C. 3659/2025 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 03/07/2025 at 21:40:38
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
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. 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 and continuance of the
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
12. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 646/2023 registered at
P.S. Malviya Nagar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are
CRL.M.C. 3659/2025 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 03/07/2025 at 21:40:38
hereby quashed.
13. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 2, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 3659/2025 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 03/07/2025 at 21:40:38