Delhi High Court – Orders
Mohd. Atik And Ors vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 7 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1460/2025
MOHD. ATIK AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.M. Abkar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Moinuddin Katarya, Advocate.
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
with Mr. Sachin, SI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.08.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 76/20133 dated 14th February,
2013, registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas under Sections 498A/406/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,4 and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961,5 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
Subsequently, a chargesheet has also been filed in the said FIR.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2 (the
Complainant). The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“the impugned”
4
“IPC”
5
“the DV Act”
CRL.M.C. 1460/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 21:47:28
was solemnised on 20th April, 2009 according to Muslim customs and the
parties have no child from this marriage.
3. Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties
deteriorated, pursuant to which they started residing separately. 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.
4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled
the disputes of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue
influence. Pursuant thereto, the parties have executed a
Compromise/Divorce Deed dated 28th October, 2015. As per the terms of the
deed, Respondent No. 2 has settled all her disputes with the Petitioners
without any monetary consideration and agreed to the quashing of the
impugned FIR. Further, the deed records that Petitioner No. 1 has
pronounced talaq to Respondent No. 2 and that Respondent No. 2 does not
wish to recover any dowry articles given at the time of marriage. The said
Compromise/Divorce deed is placed on record and perused by the Court.
5. Respondent No. 2 who is present before the Court and duly identified
by the Investigating Officer states that she has voluntarily settled all her
disputes with the Petitioners and has no objections to the quashing of the
impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect is also placed on record.
Considering the fact that Respondent No. 2 is not receiving maintenance
under the settlement, the Court has interacted with her directly. She confirms
that she is aware of her right to claim maintenance and has voluntarily and
knowingly waived this right. She states that she is settled in her life and has
CRL.M.C. 1460/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 21:47:28
no desire for any monetary settlement from the Petitioners.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offences
under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the DV Act, are 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 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.,6 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.
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 1460/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 21:47:28
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]
8. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr.,7 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.
7
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 1460/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 21:47:28
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 domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High
CRL.M.C. 1460/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 21:47:28
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]
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 76/2013 dated 14th
February, 2013, registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas for offences under
Sections 498A/406/34 and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed.
11. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.
12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications (if any)
are disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 7, 2025
nk
CRL.M.C. 1460/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 21:47:28