Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th November, 2025
MR. SUPREET SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Niharika Ahlawat & Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Advs.
Petitioners in person
AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State SI Krishan Pal Singh, PS-
Mukherjee Nagar Mr. Gaurav Mittal, Adv. for R2
R2/ Complainant in person
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 160/2018 dated 24.03.2018, registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, 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 27.02.2011, as per Sikh rites, rituals and ceremonies. One male child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties.
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 aforementioned FIR. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of Petitioner No. 1.
4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi on 24.05.2025, on 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. In terms of the said settlement, the entire settlement amount of Rs. 17,50,000/already stands paid to Respondent No. 2.
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 subject FIR are quashed.
7. Offence under Sections 406 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offence under Section 498A of the IPC is 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:-
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)
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:-
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)
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. 160/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
12. 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.
13. It is also clarified that the legal rights of the minor child will not be affected, in any manner, whatsoever by the present order.
14. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
15. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025 “SS”