Delhi High Court – Orders
Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4935/2025
PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate
with Petitioners in person
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with SI Arun Kumar, PS Prem Nagar
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate for R-2
with Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 25.07.2025
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. 0092/2021 registered under
Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Prem
Nagar, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the Complainant, i.e., Respondent
No. 2. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The
marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on
18th April, 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They have one male
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4935/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 21:45:53
child from this marriage.
3. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the
relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started residing
separately since July 2020. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but
to no avail. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the
Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by
them, which compliant 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 Memorandum of
Undertaking/Settlement Deed4 has been executed by Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 in September, 2023. A copy of the Settlement Deed has
been placed on record.
5. As per the terms of the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay
a total sum of INR 3,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2 towards full and final
settlement for all her claims in terms of stridhan, dowry articles, past,
present and future claims of maintenance and permanent alimony. On the
other hand, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all pending cases filed
by her against the Petitioners and give her no objection to the quashing of
the present FIR. Both parties have further agreed that the custody of the
minor child shall be with Respondent No. 2 and both Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 shall jointly seek a divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19555. Pursuant to the settlement,
Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 filed for and obtained a decree of
4
“Settlement Deed”
5
“HMA”
CRL.M.C. 4935/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 21:45:53
divorce by mutual consent through order dated 26th October, 2024, passed
by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, North West, Rohini Courts, New
Delhi. 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 3,50,000/- is full and final settlement of all
claims of Respondent No. 2, including the claims of the minor child for
maintenance in the future. 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. As far as payment of the settlement amount is concerned, a sum of
INR 1,50,000/- has already been paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of
recording of first motion for seeking divorce under Section 13-B (1) of the
HMA. A further sum of INR 1,00,000/- has been paid to her at the time of
recording of statement of second motion. As for the remaining amount of
CRL.M.C. 4935/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 21:45:53
INR 1,00,000/-, it was agreed between the parties that the said amount shall
be paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of quashing of the impugned FIR.
9. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and has been
identified by her counsel, confirms that the settlement has been entered by
her on her own free will, without any force, coercion or undue influence. For
the final payment, the Petitioners, who are also present before the Court and
have been identified by the concerned Investigating Officer, have handed
over a demand draft bearing DD No. 311854, for the sum of INR 1,00,000/-
drawn on Bank of Baroda dated 25th April, 2025 to Respondent No. 2 and
she confirms the receipt of the same. In light of the above, Respondent No. 2
states that she has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. An affidavit
to this effect is also on record.
10. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence
under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the 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 accepting6
(2020) 20 SCC 787
7
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 4935/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 21:45:53
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 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]
11. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
CRL.M.C. 4935/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 21:45:53
& 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 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
8
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 4935/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 21:45:53
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]
12. In light of the above and 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.
13. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 0092/2021 registered
under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC at P.S. Prem Nagar, and all
other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
14. Parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
CRL.M.C. 4935/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 21:45:53
15. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 25, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 4935/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 21:45:53