Delhi High Court – Orders
Anjali Ahlawat & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 8 July, 2025
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 764/2025
ANJALI AHLAWAT & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mahipal Singh,
Advocate along with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP
for the State with W/SI
Poonam, PS Najafgarh.
W/ASI Geeta, PS RI, DCP
Office Dwarka.
Complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 08.07.2025
CRL.M.A. 3615/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 764/2025
3. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
189/2021 dated 12.04.2021, registered at Police Station
Najafgarh, for offences under Sections
354/354A/354B/506/509/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(‘IPC‘), including all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom. The FIR was registered on the complaint filed by
Respondent No. 2.
4. It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No.3 and
Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 07.06.2015 as per Hindu
rites and ceremonies. Two children were born from the said
CRL.M.C. 764/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:59
wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, the parties started
living separately. The other petitioners are the family members of
Petitioner No.3.
5. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against
the petitioners alleging that Petitioner No.2 (father-in-law of
Respondent No.2) and Petitioner No.3 had broken the lock of the
property where Respondent No.2 was residing. It is alleged that
Petitioner No.2 made certain crude comments and misbehaved
with Respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2 also allegedly took off his
pants and touched the private parts of Respondent No.2. It is
further alleged that when Respondent No.2 tried to run away,
Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.4 caught her and threatened her
with dire harm.
6. Chargesheet has been filed against Petitioner No.2 for
offences under Sections 354/354A/354B/376/506/509/323/34 of
the IPC. The other petitioners have been charge sheeted for the
offences under Sections 506/509/323/34 of the IPC.
7. The learned counsel for the parties submits that the FIR
was registered pursuant to an altercation that took place due to
marital discord between Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No. 3.
He submits that the parties have resolved their disputes and
Respondent No.2 is now happily residing with Petitioner No.3.
8. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties
have settled their disputes by way of Settlement dated
17.12.2024 before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New
Delhi, out of their free will without any pressure, coercion or
undue influence.
9. The petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are present in the
Court. They have been duly identified by the Investigating
Officer.
CRL.M.C. 764/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:59
10. On being asked, Respondent No.2 states that various
allegations were made on the advice received at that time. She
states that the complaint was given due to matrimonial acrimony
and she is now residing with Petitioner No.3 happily. She states
that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of
the present FIR, and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
11. Offences under Sections 323/506/509 of the IPC are
compoundable whereas offence under Section
354/354A/354B/376 of the IPC are non-compoundable.
12. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash offences which are non-
compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between
the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while
accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case
of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6
SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed 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.
CRL.M.C. 764/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:59
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)
13. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State
of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble 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
CRL.M.C. 764/2025 Page 4 of 7This 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:59
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 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
CRL.M.C. 764/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:59
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)
14. It is not in doubt that the offences under Sections 376, 354,
354A and 354B of the IPC are serious in nature. The same
cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the
dispute. Such offences, in true sense, are not private in nature.
15. The allegations against Petitioner No.2, who is the father-
in-law of Respondent No.2, are particularly serious in nature.
However, as stated by Respondent No.2, the present case is an
outcome of matrimonial acrimony between her and Petitioner
No.3.
16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Luv
Sharma & Ors. V. State & Anr. : CRL.M.C.1603/2021, while
exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC had quashed the
FIR registered for offences under Sections 376/377/354/506/509
of the IPC by the complainant against her in-laws on the basis of
compromise entered into between the parties. The relevant
portion of the said Judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“4… The present case arises out of a matrimonial
dispute. This Court is pained to note that in
matrimonial cases, there is an increasing tendency
of filing such complaints for an offence under
Section 376 IPC against the father-in-law, brother-
in-law or any other male member of the family of
the husband just to exert pressure on the family of
the husband.
5. This Court is exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the instant FIR in
view of the settlement arrived at between the
CRL.M.C. 764/2025 Page 6 of 7This 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:59
parties and in view of the fact that matrimonial
disputes have been settled before the Delhi High
Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre and the
marriage stands dissolved. Even though there was
an allegation of rape against the father-in – law of
the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that
no useful purpose would be served in continuing
with the present proceedings…”
17. It is an abysmal state of affairs that litigants have resorted
to making a mockery of the judicial system by preferring false
complaints of such a serious nature to arm twist the other side
and gain leverage in matrimonial disputes. However, as noted
above, the parties have since resolved their disputes and
Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.3 have also started residing
together. In such circumstances, the continuation of proceedings
would only cause further undue harassment and heartburn to the
parties.
18. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and nature of dispute
and the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, this
Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping
the dispute alive. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the BNSS.
19. In view of the above, FIR No. 189/2021 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
20. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 8, 2025
DU
CRL.M.C. 764/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:59