Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th November, 2025
VIKAS AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Meena Gupta, Adv. Petitioners in person
Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State Mr. Girish Chander, Mr. Ashish Kandpal & Mr. Abhishek Saroj, Advs. for
R2
VIKAS AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Meena Gupta, Adv. Petitioners in person
Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State Mr. Girish Chander, Mr. Ashish Kandpal & Mr. Abhishek Saroj, Advs. for
R2
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions are filed seeking quashing of FIRs, being, FIR No. 381/2019 dated 06.12.2019 for offences under Sections 323/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar and FIR No. 422/2022 dated 14.07.2022 for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 08.02.2018 as per Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies. A child was born out of the said wedlock. 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 by them, which later culminated into the FIR No. 422/2022 in CRL.M.C. 8156/2025.
4. Another FIR No. 381/2019 in CRL.M.C. 8147/2025 was registered on the complaint made by Respondent No. 2 alleging that she has been physically assaulted by Petitioner No. 1 and his family members, who have inflicted injuries upon her.
5. Chargesheet in FIR No. 381/2019 has been filed under Sections 323/354/34 of the IPC and chargesheet in FIR NO. 422/2022 has been filed under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC.
6. The present petitions are filed on the ground that the matters are amicably settled between the parties before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by way of the Memorandum of Understanding/ Compromise Deed dated 28.07.2025 out of their own free will, without any threat, force, coercion, misrepresentation, or influences.
7. The petitioners and complainant in both the cases are present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
8. It is also submitted that Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce.
9. In terms of the Settlement dated 28.07.2025, out of the entire settlement amount of ₹18,00,000/-, a sum of ₹6,00,000/already stands paid to Respondent No. 2 and the balance amount of ₹12,00,000/- is handed over to Respondent No. 2 in the form of a demand draft for a sum of ₹4,00,000/- bearing no. 852286 dated 18.10.2025 drawn on DCB Bank and a fixed deposit for a sum of ₹8,00,000/- from DCB Bank.
10. The complainant states that due to marital discord, a scuffle has taken place between the parties and due to ill-advice, she made exaggerated allegations in the FIRs. She submits that all the disputes have since been resolved and she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.
11. The parties unconditionally apologize for their behaviour and undertake not to indulge into any such activity in future
12. Offences under Sections 323/406 of the IPC are compoundable in nature whereas offence under Sections 354/498A of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature.
13. 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:-
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)
14. 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:-
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 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)
15. In the present matters, the complainant has stated that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the respective FIRs. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, it is unlikely that the present FIRs will result in conviction when the complainant does not wish to pursue the cases. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn of the parties.
16. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, 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.
17. In view of the above, FIR Nos. 381/2019 and 422/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
18. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the legality of the settlement or any right in relation to the custody of the minor child.
19. It is also clarified that the legal rights of the minor child will not be affected, in any manner, whatsoever by the present order.
20. The present petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
21. A copy of the order be placed in both the matters. AMIT MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 17, 2025 “SS”