Delhi High Court – Orders
Vaibhav Jain vs The State Govt, Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 22 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2298/2025
VAIBHAV JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate with
Petitioner (through VC).
versus
THE STATE GOVT, OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for
State.
SI Vijay Pal Singh, PS: CWC Nanak
Pera.
Mr. Sachin Dayma, Advocate for R-2
with R-2 through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 22.04.2025
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
37/2023 dated 18th May, 2023 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860,1 at P.S. Crime (Women) Cell, Nanak Pura and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. Subsequently, in the said
proceedings, chargesheet has been filed qua the Respondents under the
aforesaid provisions.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2
to 3 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 10th December, 2016 as per
CRL.M.C. 2298/2025 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 22/04/2025 at 22:28:36
Hindu rites and ceremonies. A daughter was born from the said marriage on
2nd October, 2018. However, due to matrimonial discord, the relationship
between the parties deteriorated. Several efforts for reconciliation were
made but to no avail.
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 and a Settlement Deed/Memorandum of
Understanding dated 10th June, 2024 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.
Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have
obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent through order dated 8th
October, 2024 passed by the Family Courts, North, Rohini Courts, New
Delhi.
5. On 4th April, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded
before the Joint Registrar and after verification of all critical aspects, the
Joint Registrar passed the following order:
“Today, statement of respondent no. 2 has been recorded to ascertain the
veracity and the genuineness of the parties entering into settlement.
Respondent no. 2 lodged FIR No. 37/2023, Under Section 498-
A/406/34 IPC, registered at PS Crime Women Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi and
charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners.
Respondent no. 2 states that she has voluntarily without any
pressure or coercion from anyone and with the intervention of friends and
colleagues and after obtaining due legal advice entered into1
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 2298/2025 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 22/04/2025 at 22:28:36
MOU/settlement deed executed on 10.06.2024 with the petitioners and have
settled all her issues, disputes and grievances. The MOU is on record as
Annexure E at page 67 to 73 bearing her signatures.
As per the settlement, Respondent no. 2 has already received a sum
of Rs. 2,20,000/- as well as today Respondent no. 2 has received a sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- via online transfer through PNB Bank vide transfer ID
509436263949 & ID 509436264090. Respondent no. 2 has received the
total settlement amount of Rs. 3,20,000/-, Respondent no. 2 has no
objections, if the FIR No. 37/2023, Under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC,
registered at PS Crime Women Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi and all proceedings
emanating there from are quashed against the petitioners.
This settlement amount is towards her entire alimony and
maintenance whatsoever for past, present and future, as well as towards all
her articles and stridhan whatsoever. Respondent no. 2 shall not claim
anything in this regards in future by way of any litigation. Respondent no. 2
shall abide by all the terms of the settlement and fully cooperate in quashing
of the present FIR.
As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent no. 2 has already
withdrawn all other cases instituted by Respondent no. 2 against the
petitioner. Respondent no. 2 further states that she undertakes to withdraw
any other case, if any remaining.
Respondent no. 2 has already obtained divorce from petitioner no. 1
in HMA No. 1576/2024. The divorce decree dated 08.10.2024 is on record
as Annexure G at page 80 to 87.
As per settlement, the custody of minor child namely Kaira Jain
(aged about 6 years) shall remain with Respondent no. 2 without any
visitation rights to the petitioner or any of her family members or relatives.
The settlement amount received by Respondent no. 2 includes the
maintenance for the child. However, the settlement arrived at between the
parties is without prejudice to the rights and interests of minor child.
Respondent no. 2 has no objection whatsoever if the present FIR
against the petitioner is quashed and Respondent no. 2 shall fully cooperate
in quashing of the present FIR and raise no claim in future through any civil
or criminal litigation with regards to the incident relating to the present
FIR. Respondent no. 2 has also given her affidavit in support of the present
petition which is at page no. 24-26 of the petition bearing her signatures.
Respondent no. 2 has been identified by her counsel.
This pre verified report along with the petition may be placed before
the Hon’ble Court on 22″” April, 2025 alongwith the statements recorded
today.”
6. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly prayed for the
quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2 has joined the proceedings
CRL.M.C. 2298/2025 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 22/04/2025 at 22:28:37
through the video-conferencing mechanism and has been identified by the
Investigating Officer. She confirms her statement made to the Court and
gives no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this
effect is also on record.
7. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offence
under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable while offence under
Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.
8. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers
under Section 582 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.,2 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 factor2
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 2298/2025 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 22/04/2025 at 22:28:37
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]
9. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr.,3 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
3
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 2298/2025 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 22/04/2025 at 22:28:37
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 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
CRL.M.C. 2298/2025 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 22/04/2025 at 22:28:37
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 entered into a settlement, this Court is of the opinion that the
present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582 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.
11. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 37/2023 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
12. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 22, 2025
d.negi
CRL.M.C. 2298/2025 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 22/04/2025 at 22:28:37
[ad_1]
Source link