Delhi High Court – Orders
Mr. Naseem & Ors vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 22 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5833/2025, CRL.M.A. 24933/2025
MR. NASEEM & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Hasibuddin and Ms. Ruhani
Sahanu, Advocates with Petitioner in
person.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
with Mr. Anil, SI, PS-Seemapuri and
Mr. Gajal, SI, PS-Krishna Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 22.08.2025
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. 753/2021 registered under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Seemapuri and all other proceedings
emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner Nos. 2
to 6 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 11 th February, 2020
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 5833/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:44:39
according to Muslim Rites and Customs at New Delhi. Parties have no
children from this marriage.
3. Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties
deteriorated, pursuant to which they started residing separately since 2nd
January, 2021. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the Petitioners,
alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated
into the impugned FIR. Upon culmination of investigation, the chargesheet
was filed against the Petitioners under Sections 498A/406/34/506 of the IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. 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 have amicably resolved all their disputes.
Pursuant thereto, the parties have executed a Mediation Settlement dated
11th August, 2025 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts,
whereby Petitioner No. 1 had agreed to pay a sum of INR 1,50,000/- to
Respondent No. 2 as final settlement amount. As per the terms of the
settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all proceedings
pending before various Courts. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1
and Respondent No. 2 have obtained mutual consent divorce decree/ Talaq-
e-Mubarat on 13th August, 2025.
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. In accordance with the Agreement, the
Petitioners have tendered the settlement amount of INR 1,50,000/- by way
CRL.M.C. 5833/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:44:39
of a demand draft bearing DD No. 160534 to Respondent No. 2 during the
proceedings. The same has been duly received and acknowledged by
Respondent no. 2.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offences
under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are
non-compoundable while the 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.,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 in4
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 5833/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:44:39
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]
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 not5
(2017) 9 SCC 641CRL.M.C. 5833/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:44:39
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. 5833/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:44:39
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]
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. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 753/2021, P.S.
Seemapuri and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
quashed.
11. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 22, 2025
nk
CRL.M.C. 5833/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:44:39