Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: November 14, 2025
VIKRANT MATHUR & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Adv.
THROUGH SHO PS DAYAL PUR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State
Chanchal, PS Pul Prahladpur, South East District.
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.
R-2 / complainant in person.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 34/2021 dated 22.01.2021, registered at Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur, 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 Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 08.03.2018, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties and Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started residing separately.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against Petitioner No. 1 and his parents, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the present FIR. Petitioner Nos. 2 is the mother of Petitioner No. 1.
4. Accused Manohar Lal, who was the father of Petitioner No. 1, is stated to have expired.
5. Petitioner No. 1 has been chargesheeted for offences under Sections 498A/406/377/34 of the IPC and Petitioner No. 2 has been chargesheeted for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC.
6. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 24.04.2024, out of their own free will, without any force, pressure or coercion. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained decree of divorce and intend to live their future lives peacefully.
7. In terms of settlement dated 24.04.2024, out of the total settlement amount of 3,10,000/-, ₹2,60,000/- already stands paid to Respondent No. 2 and the balance amount of ₹50,000/- has been handed over to Respondent No. 2 in Court today by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 302612 dated 24.09.2025 drawn on State Bank of India.
8. The parties are present in person in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
9. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that she has entered into the settlement without any coercion, force or pressure. She further 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.
10. Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Section 498A/377 of the IPC are 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:-
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 factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
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)
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:-
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. It is not in doubt that the offence under Section 377 of IPC is serious in nature. The same cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences, in true sense, are not private in nature.
14. The present case, however, arises out of matrimonial disputes and the allegation of unnatural sex has been made by the wife against the husband. The parties have decided to part ways and move ahead in their lives burying the acrimony they had against each other.
15. This Court, in cases of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.: CRL.M.C.830/2019, Anmol Katyal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.: CRL.M.C.1613/2019, Gajender Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.: CRL.M.C. 5216/2018 and Joginder Singh Bote & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Anr.: CRL.M.C. 4117/2018, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had quashed the FIRs registered for offences under Section 377 of the IPC on the basis of compromise entered into between the husband and the wife.
16. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such a case, in the opinion of this Court, continuation of the proceedings would only cause ill will to fester between the parties and cause undue harassment to Respondent No.2.
17. 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.
18. In view of the above, FIR No. 34/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
19. 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.
20. It is also clarified that the legal rights of the minor child will not be affected, in any manner, whatsoever by the present order.
21. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 14, 2025 ‘KDK’