[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Amit Kumar & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 14 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1957/2025
AMIT KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deepak Dubey, Mr. Rajan
Kashyap and Ms. Sakshi Kashyap,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Subhash Goyal and Mr. Sandeep
Kumar, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC for State with
Mr. Deshpal Singh, ASI, PS-Narela
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 14.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
20231 (Corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19732) seeks quashing of FIR. No. 444/2023 dated 29th June, 2023,
registered under Sections 498A,406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
18603 at P.S. Narela, Delhi as well as all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom.
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
3
“IPC”
W.P.(CRL) 1957/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 21:27:19
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner Nos. 2
to 4 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 18th February, 2012 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children, a son and a daughter, were born
from the said marriage. However, due to matrimonial discord, the
relationship between the parties deteriorated and the parties started living
separately.
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. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement dated 5th August, 2023 before
Counselling Cell, Family Court, North District, Rohini, Delhi. As per the
terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all
proceedings pending before various Courts. The settlement further notes that
there are no grievances left between the parties or their family members and
thus, there is no purpose of keeping the impugned FIR alive. Pursuant to the
said settlement, the parties are now happily residing together.
5. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the
quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this
Court, confirms that she has voluntarily returned to her matrimonial home
and has been happily residing together with her husband. She gives no
objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. To this effect, an
Affidavit/No Objection Certificate is also on record.
W.P.(CRL) 1957/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 21:27:19
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offence
under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while offences under
Section 406 and 506 of IPC are compoundable. It is well-established that the
High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 582 of BNSS
(corresponding to 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 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
4
(2014) 6 SCC 466
W.P.(CRL) 1957/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 21:27:19
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.,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
5
(2017) 9 SCC 641W.P.(CRL) 1957/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 21:27:19
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 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
W.P.(CRL) 1957/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 21:27:19
consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. Thus, considering the nature of dispute, the fact that the parties have
amicably entered into a settlement and have chosen to resume their
matrimonial life with one another, this Court is of the opinion that the
present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) as no purpose would be served by
keeping the dispute alive. The continuance of the present proceedings would
only amount to abuse of the process of Court.
9. In view of the above, the impugned FIR. No. 444/2023 dated 29 th
June, 2023, registered under Sections 498A,406,506 and 34 of IPC at P.S.
Narela, Delhi as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom
are hereby quashed.
10. The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement.
11. It is clarified, that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the
minor children.
12. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 14, 2025
nk
W.P.(CRL) 1957/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 21:27:19
[ad_2]
Source link