[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Chetan @ Rahul & Ors vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 14 July, 2025
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 310/2025 & CRL.M.A. 1606/2025
CHETAN @ RAHUL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. R. P. S. Bhatti,
Advocate along with
petitioners no. 1 and 2 in
person.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP
for the State with SI
Suresh Kumar Meena, PS
New Usman Pur.
Mr. Ganender Kumar,
Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
Respondent No.2 (through
VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 14.07.2025
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
570/2020 dated 30.09.2020, registered at Police Station New
Usmanpur, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘), including all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 28.11.2019 as per Hindu
rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the said wedlock.
Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings
took place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 started living separately. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5
CRL.M.C. 310/2025 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 18/07/2025 at 22:31:46
are the family members of Petitioner No. 1.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against
Petitioner No. 1 and his family members alleging that she was
subjected to cruelty and demands of dowry by them. Respondent
No.2 further alleged that Petitioner No.1 forcefully had unnatural
sex with her. This later culminated into the present FIR.
4. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case against
Petitioner No.1 for the offences under Sections 498A/406/377/34
of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(‘DP Act‘). The other petitioners have been charge sheeted for
the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and Section
4 of the DP Act.
5. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is
amicably settled between the parties before the Counsellor
attached with the learned Family Court, North East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by way of Settlement dated
02.05.2024, out of their own free will, without any fear, coercion,
or undue influence. Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner No.1
have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they
intend to live their future lives peacefully.
6. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are present in the Court.
Respondent No. 2 is present through video conferencing. They
all have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
7. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that she has
received the entire settlement amount. She further states that she
does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present
FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed.
8. Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable
whereas offences under Sections 498A/377 of the IPC and
Section 4 of the DP Act are non-compoundable.
CRL.M.C. 310/2025 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 18/07/2025 at 22:31:46
9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘)] 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.
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
CRL.M.C. 310/2025 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 18/07/2025 at 22:31:46
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)
10. 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
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
CRL.M.C. 310/2025 Page 4 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 18/07/2025 at 22:31:46
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
CRL.M.C. 310/2025 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 18/07/2025 at 22:31:46
11. It is not in doubt that the offence under Section 377 of the
IPC is 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.
12. The present case, however, arises out of matrimonial
disputes and the allegation of unnatural sex has been made by the
wife against the husband. The parties have decided to part ways
and move ahead in their lives burying the acrimony they had
against each other.
13. This Court, in cases of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. State &
Anr. : CRL.M.C.830/2019, Anmol Katyal & Ors. v. State (NCT
of Delhi) & Anr. : CRL.M.C.1613/2019, Gajender Singh &
Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. : CRL.M.C. 5216/2018 and
Joginder Singh Bote & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Anr.:
CRL.M.C. 4117/2018, while exercising power under Section
482 of the CrPC, had quashed the FIRs registered for offences
under Section 377 of the IPC on the basis of compromise entered
into between the husband and the wife.
14. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that
the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2
does not wish to pursue the case. In such a case, in the opinion of
this Court, continuation of the proceedings would only cause ill
will to fester between the parties and cause undue harassment to
Respondent No.2.
15. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the
parties have amicably resolved their disputes, this Court feels that
no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive
and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to
exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
CRL.M.C. 310/2025 Page 6 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 18/07/2025 at 22:31:46
BNSS.
16. In view of the above, FIR No. 570/2020 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
17. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 14, 2025
DU
CRL.M.C. 310/2025 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 18/07/2025 at 22:31:46
[ad_2]
Source link