[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Sh Kapil And Others vs State Nct Of Delhi And Another & Anr on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4364/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18990/2025
SH KAPIL AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sulalit Singh Sisodia and Mr.
Jagesh Singh, Advocates with
Petitioners in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
SI Roshan Raj Singh, PS: Sangam
Vihar.
Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate for R-2
with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.07.2025
1. The present petition 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. 872/20223 registered under
Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Sangam
Vihar, 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. The marriage between Petitioner
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 04th March, 2017 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the said marriage.
However, due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“the impugned FIR”
CRL.M.C. 4364/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 10/07/2025 at 21:25:37
deteriorated and parties have been living separately since 01st May, 2020.
Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed 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 has been
amicably settled between the parties on their own free will, without any
coercion, pressure or undue influence. In this regard, Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 have also executed a Memorandum of Understanding5
dated 16th May, 2024, whereby Petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay a total
sum of ₹6,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement towards
the stridhan and permanent alimony (past present and future). On the other
hand, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all proceedings initiated by
her against the Petitioners, which are pending before various Courts.
Pursuant to the MoU, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained
a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 21st November, 2024
passed by the Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket, New Delhi. In
light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of
the impugned FIR.
5. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court in person and is
duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement arrived
at between the parties as being voluntary and free from coercion, pressure or
undue influence. She confirms that as per the terms of the MoU, she has
received a sum of ₹2,00,000/- at the time of recording of first motion of
4
“IPC”
5
“MoU”
CRL.M.C. 4364/2025 Page 2 of 6
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 10/07/2025 at 21:25:37
divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
₹2,00,000/- at the time of recording of the second motion for divorce under
Section 13(2) of HMA. Additionally, in accordance with the MoU, the
Petitioners have tendered the balance amount of ₹2,00,000/- to Respondent
No. 2 during the course of proceedings today, by way of a demand draft,
bearing DD No. 832480. The same has been duly received and
acknowledged by Respondent no. 2. A copy of the DD has been handed over
across the board and is taken on record. In light of the above, Respondent
No. 2 states that she has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence
under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under
Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. It is well-established
that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS
(formerly Section 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.,6 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
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 High6
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 4364/2025 Page 3 of 6
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 10/07/2025 at 21:25:37
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]
7. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr.,7 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
7
(2017) 9 SCC 641CRL.M.C. 4364/2025 Page 4 of 6
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 10/07/2025 at 21:25:37
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,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties
CRL.M.C. 4364/2025 Page 5 of 6
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 10/07/2025 at 21:25:37
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]
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, the impugned of FIR No. 872/2022 registered
under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC at P.S. Sangam Vihar, and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
10. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.
11. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 7, 2025/d.negi
CRL.M.C. 4364/2025 Page 6 of 6
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 10/07/2025 at 21:25:37
[ad_2]
Source link