Delhi High Court – Orders
Shyam Singh @ Shyam & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4332/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18877/2025
SHYAM SINGH @ SHYAM & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shehzad Ali, Advocate with
Petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the
State.
SI Seema.
SI Anil, PS: Seemapuri.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.07.2025
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. 718/2018 registered under
Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 as well as
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19614, at P.S. Seemapuri and all
other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2
to 6 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4332/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:39
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 24th November, 2012 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child was born from the said marriage.
However, due to matrimonial discords and temperamental differences, the
relationship between the parties deteriorated and parties started living
separately on 22nd June, 2014. Thereafter, several efforts for reconciliation
were made.
3. 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 matter is amicably
settled between the parties on their own free will, without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence, with the help of the Counsellor, family Court,
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. In this regard a Settlement
dated 17th January, 2025 was executed between Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi. The same has been placed on record and is perused by this
Court.
5. It is noted in the said Settlement deed that Petitioner No. 1
(Respondent therein) obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce from the
Gaziabad District Court, U.P., however, the parties decided to reside
together from 13th October, 2024 on a trial basis, along with their child. It is
further noted that the parties got remarried to one another on 16th January,
2025. As per the terms of the settlement, they have agreed to reside together
as husband and wife and carry out their matrimonial duties and
responsibilities. It has also been undertaken by both parties that they shall
4
“DP Act”
CRL.M.C. 4332/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:39
maintain harmonious domestic environment and that their family members
shall not interfere in the peaceful family life of the parties. Petitioner No. 1
has also agreed to pay a sum of INR 1,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2
towards her miscellaneous expenses. Further, Respondent No. 2 has agreed
to withdraw the pending petitions filed by her against Petitioner No. 1 and
cooperate by giving her no-objection to quashing of the impugned FIR. In
this regard, Respondent No. 2 has also executed an affidavit giving her no
objection to the quashing of the FIR.
6. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are
currently happily living together.
7. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and duly
identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms that she has entered into the
settlement on her own volition, without any fear, coercion or undue
influence and has agreed to now put aside her differences and reside with
Petitioner No. 1 and their child as a family. She further confirms that she has
no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. 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, the offence
under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act are non-
compoundable while offence under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC are
compoundable. 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
CRL.M.C. 4332/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:39
& Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 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.
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
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 4332/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:39
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]
9. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr.,6 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.
6
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 4332/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:39
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 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]
10. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and have decided to resume their relationship
as husband and wife, living together with their child as a family, 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
CRL.M.C. 4332/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:39
alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of Court.
11. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 718/2018 registered
under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC as well as Section 4 of the DP
Act, at P.S. Seemapuri and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed.
12. The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement.
13. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 7, 2025/d.negi
CRL.M.C. 4332/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:39
[ad_1]
Source link