Delhi High Court – Orders
Arun Kumar And Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 11 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5372/2025
ARUN KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nazim Uddin Ahmed, Ms.
Tanveer Khan, Advocates with
Petitioners in person
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Mehla, APP for the State
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 11.08.2025
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. 429/2022 registered under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Aman Vihar
and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 2
to 6 are in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1
and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 25th February, 2020 as per Hindu
rites and ceremonies. Parties have no child from this marriage.
3. Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
CRL.M.C. 5372/2025 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 12/08/2025 at 22:26:58
deteriorated, pursuant to which they started residing separately since 03rd
July, 2021. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail.
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. The chargesheets stands filed, whereunder the
Petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPC.
4. The parties on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or
undue influence have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences.
Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed a
Settlement Agreement dated 04th November, 2022 before the Delhi
Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts. As per the terms of the settlement,
Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before
various Courts. Pursuant to the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to
move back in the company of Petitioner No. 1. Additionally, the parties have
agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts.
Respondent No. 2 states that she is now happily living with her husband and
has no surviving complaints.
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 and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, gives no objection to
the quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect is also on
record. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the
quashing of the impugned FIR.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offence
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 5372/2025 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 12/08/2025 at 22:26:58
under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable while offence under
Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.
7. 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.,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
CRL.M.C. 5372/2025 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 12/08/2025 at 22:26:58
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]
8. 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
should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
5
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 5372/2025 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 12/08/2025 at 22:26:58
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 consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance.”
CRL.M.C. 5372/2025 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 12/08/2025 at 22:26:58
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have
amicably entered into a settlement and are happily residing together, 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.
10. In view of the above, FIR No. 429/2022, P.S. Aman Vihar and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
11. Parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement.
12. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 11, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 5372/2025 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 12/08/2025 at 22:26:58