Delhi High Court – Orders
Chetan Sharma & Ors vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 30 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~40 & 43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4039/2025
CHETAN SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dharm Vir Singh, Advocate with
Petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the
State.
Mr. Manish Srivastava, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2 in person.
+ CRL.M.C. 4056/2025
CHETAN SHARMA AND ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharm Vir Singh, Advocate with
Petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the
State.
Mr. Manish Srivastava, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 30.05.2025
1. The present petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:53
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seek quashing of the following FIRs:
(a) FIR No. 307/2021 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Mandawli Fazal Pur and all other
proceedings emanating therefrom; and
(b) FIR No. 508/2020 registered under Sections 323/341/506 of IPC at
P.S. Mandawli Fazal Pur and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The aforesaid FIRs have been registered by the Complainant/
Respondent No. 2. Chetan Sharma (the Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 4056/2025
and Petitioner No. 1 in CRL.M.C. 4039/2025) was the husband of the
Complainant. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 in CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 were the in-
laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 07th November, 2016 as per Hindu
rites and ceremonies. One male child was born from the said marriage, who
is presently in the custody of Respondent No. 2. However, due to
matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated.
Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the
Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later
culminated into the registration of FIR No. 307/2021 under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPC.
4. Respondent No. 2 made another complaint against her husband,
alleging that he used to abused her. She specifically referred to an incident
dated 15th November, 2020, alleging that her husband, after consuming
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:53
alcohol, subjected her to abuse. It is stated that when she protested and
attempted to leave the home, he obstructed her and allegedly began to
assault her. She further alleged that her husband punched and kicked her and
also tried to injure her with a knife, resulting in bruises on her neck.
Consequently, on the basis of this statement, FIR No. 508/2020 was
registered under Sections 323/341/506 of IPC.
5. 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 and a composite Settlement Deed dated 16th
November, 2024 has been executed by the Petitioners and Respondent No.
2. In terms of the Settlement Deed, the Petitioners had agreed to pay a total
sum of INR 9,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2. Of the said amount, the final
instalment amounting INR 2,50,000/- was agreed to be paid to Respondent
No. 2 at the time of quashing of the impugned FIRs. The said payment has
been made to Respondent No. 2 before the Court through a demand draft
bearing DD No. 505294, for the sum of INR 2,50,000/- drawn on ICICI
Bank dated 28th May, 2025. A copy of the demand draft has been handed
over across the board, and the same is taken on record.
6. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2
have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent through order dated
07th November, 2016 passed by the Principal Judge-Family Court, East
District/ Karkardooma, Delhi.
7. The Complainant is present in person before the Court, and is duly
identified by the Investigating Officer. She affirms the receipt of the entire
settlement amount and states that she has amicably settled her differences
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:53
with the Petitioners. She submits that as per the settlement, the custody of
the minor child rests with her. She further clarifies that her decision to settle
the matters is voluntary, without any coercion or pressure, and that she has
no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIRs. Affidavits to this effect
have also been placed on record. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the
parties jointly prayed for the quashing of the impugned FIR.
8. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, while the
offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, the offences
under Sections 406, 323, 341, 506 are compoundable at the instance of the
aggrieved parties, with the permission of the Court.
9. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers
under Section 582 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 in4
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:53
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 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.,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:
5
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:53
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 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
CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:53
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]
11. 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 cases are fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582 of BNSS as
no purpose would be served by keeping the disputes alive and continuance
of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
12. In view of the above, the impugned FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 307/2021 and
FIR No. 508/2020, both registered at P.S. Mandawli Fazal Pur, and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
14. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 30, 2025
d.negi
CRL.M.C. 4039/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4056/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:53