Delhi High Court – Orders
Pankaj Kumar & Ors vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1015/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4650/2025
PANKAJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Priyanka Verma, Advocate with
Petitioners in person
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State with ASI Inder Singh, PS Farsh
Bazar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 25.07.2025
1. The present petition 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. 145/2023 dated 18th April,
2023, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
18603 at P.S. Farsh Bazar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
Subsequently, a chargesheet under Sections 498A, 406, 354 and 34 of IPC
has also been filed against the Petitioners.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2
to 5 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 08th February, 2011 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. They have one male child from the marriage.
3. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the
relationship between the parties deteriorated and they separated. Several
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 1015/2025 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 29/07/2025 at 21:45:48
efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail. Subsequently,
Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against Petitioners, alleging that she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by them, which later culminated into the
impugned FIR.
4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties on their own free will, without any
coercion, pressure or undue influence and a Deed of Settlement dated 11th
January, 20244 has been executed by Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2.
As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw
all proceedings pending before various Courts against the Petitioners. The
parties also agreed that the custody of the minor child will remain with
Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 would have certain visitation rights.
Moreover, pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent through order dated
07th September, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts,
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
5. In terms of the Settlement Deed, Petitioner No. 1 had agreed to pay a
total sum of INR 8,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as full and final payment
of all her claims/rights and entitlements arising from the marriage with
Petitioner No. 1, including maintenance. Of the said amount, a sum of INR
50,000/- has been paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of signing of the
Settlement Deed. A sum of INR 3,00,000/- has been paid to Respondent No.
2 at the time of recording of first motion for seeking divorce under Section
13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19555. A further sum of INR 2,50,000/-
4
“Settlement Deed”
5
“HMA”
CRL.M.C. 1015/2025 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 29/07/2025 at 21:45:48
has been given as a Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of the minor son of
the parties, at the time of recording of statement of second motion. The
remaining amount of INR 2,50,000/- was agreed to be paid to Respondent
No. 2 at the time of quashing of the impugned FIR. In light of the foregoing,
counsel for the parties jointly prayed for the quashing of the impugned FIR.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts and has perused the
Settlement Deed. It is noted that as per the Settlement Deed, the parties have
agreed that the amount of INR 8,50,000/- is full and final settlement of all
claims of Respondent No. 2, including the claims of the minor child for
maintenance. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court
in Ganesh v. Sudhi Kumar Shrivastava6 has observed as follows:
“7. Before we part with, we must also express our reservation insofar as
Para 6 is concerned, which was incorporated in the order on 8-11-2017
by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. It was certainly open
to the wife to give up any claim so far as maintenance or permanent
alimony or stridhan is concerned but she could not have given up the
rights which vest in the daughter insofar as maintenance and other
issues are concerned.
8. We, therefore, exercising our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, set aside Para 6 of the consent terms. Rest of the
order stands unaltered and ought to be given effect to.”
[Emphasis supplied]
7. Thus, in light of the settled position of law, it is made clear that the
Settlement Deed shall not affect the rights of the minor son of the parties.
8. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and has been
identified by her counsel confirms the statement and states that she has
executed the same out of her own volition, without any force, coercion or
undue influence. As regards the last payment which is supposed to be paid,
the Petitioners, who are present before the Court in person and have been
CRL.M.C. 1015/2025 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 29/07/2025 at 21:45:48
identified by the concerned Investigating Officer, have handed over a copy
of the demand draft bearing DD No. 622903, for the sum of INR 2,50,000/-
drawn on Ujjivan Small Finance Bank dated 18 th July, 2025 to Respondent
No. 2. She confirms the receipt of the same and states that in light of the
above, she has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. An affidavit to
this effect is also on record.
9. The Court has considered the statements of the parties. Notably, the
offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable while offence
under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. 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.,7 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.
6
(2020) 20 SCC 787
7
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 1015/2025 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 29/07/2025 at 21:45:48
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.,8 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 recognises8
(2017) 9 SCC 641CRL.M.C. 1015/2025 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 29/07/2025 at 21:45:48
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 civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for
CRL.M.C. 1015/2025 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 29/07/2025 at 21:45:48
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 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.
12. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 145/2023 dated 18th
April, 2023, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC at P.S.
Farsh Bazar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby
quashed.
13. Parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
14. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 25, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 1015/2025 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 29/07/2025 at 21:45:48