Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 17, 2025
BANWARI LAL AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Hemangi Anil Tripathi, Adv. along
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State.
SI Sumit, PS Kalindi Kunj.
Mr. Himanshu Pandey & Mr. Ravindra Kumar Pandey, Advs. for R-2 along
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 536/2021 dated 26.11.2021, registered at Police Station Kalindi Kunj, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 27.02.2020 as per Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against Petitioner No. 1 and his family members alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and demands for dowry by them, which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are family members of Petitioner No.1.
4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.06.2025. Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner No.1 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.
5. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
6. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that she has received the entire settlement amount and she has no objection if the proceedings emanating from the present FIR are quashed.
7. Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Section 498A of the IPC are noncompoundable.
8. 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:-
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.: (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
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)
10. 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.
11. In view of the above, FIR No.536/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
12. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 17, 2025 “SK”