Delhi High Court – Orders
Sh. Naren Krishnan & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 11 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4507/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19655/2025
SH. NAREN KRISHNAN & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Ms. Srsty Verma,
Advocates with Petitioners No. 1 & 2
in person
Petitioners No. 3 & 4 (through VC)
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with ASI Neel Kamal, PS Nanakpura
Ms. Kashish Ahuja, Mr. Siddharth
Yadav, Mr. Rahul Sambher, Mr.
Ayush Kr. Singh, Ms. Sneha, Mr.
Rahul Yadav, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 11.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 104/20233 registered under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Crime
(Women) Cell Nanakpura and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2
to 4 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“the impugned FIR”
CRL.M.C. 4507/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 14/07/2025 at 22:38:02
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 22nd November, 2019 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. There is no child from this marriage. Over time,
differences arose between the parties, and despite multiple attempts at
reconciliation, they were unable to resolve their disputes and began living
separately.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the
Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty. This complaint
ultimately led to the registration of the impugned FIR, in which an
additional charge under Section 354 of the IPC was later added against
Petitioner No. 4.
4. The present petition is premised on the ground that the parties have
amicably settled all their disputes voluntarily, without any coercion or undue
influence. A Settlement Agreement dated 29th November, 2024, has been
executed between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. According to the
terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement, Petitioner No. 1
agreed to pay a total sum of INR 30,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2, who, in
turn, agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. In
furtherance of the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent by order dated 16th May,
2025, passed by the Family Court, South West, Dwarka, New Delhi. The
balance settlement amount has been handed over to Respondent No. 2 today
by way of demand draft bearing DD No. 015123, for INR 10,00,000/-, and
she acknowledges receipt thereof. A copy of the demand draft has been
handed across the Board and is taken on record.
5. In light of the foregoing, parties jointly pray for the quashing of the
4
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4507/2025 Page 2 of 5
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 14/07/2025 at 22:38:02
impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before the Court and duly
identified by the Investigating Officer, gives no objection to the quashing of
the impugned FIR.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offences
under Sections 498A and 354 of IPC are non-compoundable while offence
under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.
7. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate
cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the
parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest
is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
& Anr.5 has held as follows:
“11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of
the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the
Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise
in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing
of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to
prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.
12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived
at between the parties and the statements of respondent no.1 & 2, I am of
the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility.”
[Emphasis supplied]
8. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,6 the
Supreme Court held as follows:
“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 exercising5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 4507/2025 Page 3 of 5
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 14/07/2025 at 22:38:02
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
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. Although the offence under Section 354A of the IPC cannot be treated
as strictly ‘in personam’, and it touches upon public concerns rather than
being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also account for the
practical realities of securing a conviction in the present case. The Supreme
CRL.M.C. 4507/2025 Page 4 of 5
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 14/07/2025 at 22:38:02
Court has consistently held that in cases where the complainant has entered
into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no longer inclined to
support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction becomes
exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may
not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest.
The Complainant in the present case has categorically expressed her
unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed the settlement
as voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Given this background, the
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an empty formality,
adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources
unnecessarily. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and in view of
the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds the
present case to be an appropriate one for exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
10. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 104/2023 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
11. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 11, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 4507/2025 Page 5 of 5
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 14/07/2025 at 22:38:02