Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 12, 2025
GAGAN RATHOR AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ram Nath Singh Kushwaha & Ms. Monika Kapur, Advs. along
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) for the State.
SI Abhimanyu, PS Aman Vihar.
R-2 in person.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 701/2023 dated 29.11.2023, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, for offences under Sections 498A/406 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 07.12.2022 as per Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties. The other petitioners are the family members of Petitioner No. 1.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against Petitioner No. 1 and his family members alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR.
4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.11.2024. Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 had already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.
5. In terms of the settlement, out of the entire settlement amount of ₹3,30,000/-, a sum of ₹1,90,000/- already stands paid to Respondent No. 2 and the balance amount of ₹1,40,000/- has been handed over to Respondent No. 2 in Court today by way of Demand Draft bearing No.180033 dated 12.09.2025 drawn on Punjab National Bank.
6. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and Respondent No. 2 are present in Court today. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
7. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed.
8. Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable.
9. 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:-
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)
10. 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:-
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 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 wellbeing 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)
11. 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.
12. In view of the above, FIR No.701/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
13. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 12, 2025 “SK”