Delhi High Court – Orders
Abdul Salam & Ors vs State Through Sho Ps Welcome & Anr on 30 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1146/2025
ABDUL SALAM & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arshan Ahmad, Advocate with
Petitioners in person
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO PS WELCOME & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State with SI Anugraha, PS Welcome
Mr. Salman Alam, Advocate for R-2
with R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 30.07.2025
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. 148/2017, registered under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at P.S. Welcome and all other
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The present FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint filed by
Respondent No. 2 against her father-in-law (Petitioner No. 1), mother-in-law
(Petitioner No. 2), and brother-in-law (Petitioner No. 3), alleging that they
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
CRL.M.C. 1146/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 22:21:00
subjected her to physical and mental harassment and made unlawful
demands for dowry. She further alleged that when her husband attempted to
intervene and speak with the Petitioners regarding their conduct, they
misbehaved with him and threatened to evict him from the house. Pursuant
to the Complainant’s statement, the subject FIR was registered.
3. 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, the parties have executed a
Settlement Deed dated 25th April, 2023 before the Mediation Centre,
Karkardooma Courts. A copy of the Settlement Deed is placed on record,
and has been duly perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2
has agreed to give her no objection to the quashing of the FIR subject to the
Petitioners withdrawing the debarment/bedakhli notice issued against the
Complainant’s husband.
4. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and duly
identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms that her decision to settle
the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion.
She submits that she is presently residing happily with her husband, Faheem,
and their daughter, Hafiza, in a separate accommodation. She further states
that, pursuant to the settlement, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have returned her
stridhan and other personal articles, and have also withdrawn the ‘bedakhli’
notice that had earlier been issued against her husband. In view of the
amicable settlement, she states that she has no objection to the quashing of
the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the Petitioners seeks quashing of the
subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 1146/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 22:21:00
5. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offences
under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are
non-compoundable while offence under Section 406 of IPC is
compoundable in certain cases.
6. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers
under Section 528 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
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
4
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 1146/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 22:21:00
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.,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 even5
(2017) 9 SCC 641CRL.M.C. 1146/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 22:21:00
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 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
CRL.M.C. 1146/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 22:21:00
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 FIR No. 148/2017, P.S. Welcome
and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
10. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 30, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 1146/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 22:21:00