Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 24, 2025
GANESH DHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv. along
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State.
SI Vaibhav, PS Sarita Vihar.
Mr. Mohd Rashid Adv. for R-2 through V.C along
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 519/2015 dated 03.07.2015, registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar, for offences under Sections 498A/406/506/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The chargesheet in the present case was filed under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC.
3. It is averred that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and petitioner was solemnized as per Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties due to which Respondent No. 2 and the petitioner started living separately.
4. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against the petitioner and his family members, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the present FIR.
5. It is stated that the other accused persons being the father and mother of the petitioner have already expired.
6. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties out of their own free will, without any force, pressure or coercion.
7. It is stated that Respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they intend to live their future lives peacefully. It is further stated that the parties have already remarried and are living happily.
8. The petitioner is present in the Court and Respondent NO. 2 has appeared through video conferencing and they have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
9. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that nothing remains to be paid to her. She states that she has settled all her grievances with the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
10. Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable.
11. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
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)
12. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
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
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)
13. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
14. In view of the above, FIR No. 519/2015 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
15. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
16. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 24, 2025 “SK”