Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 ,,,,,,,,,, CRL.M.C. 1948/2025 & CRL.M.A. 8744-45/2025
AMIT ASHOK BAKSHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kajla, Adv. Petitioner no.1 in person.
Petitioners nos. 2 and 3 present through vc
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State
R-2 in person.
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 111/2021, dated 06.03.2021, registered at P.S Vikaspuri, Delhi under Sections 498A/406 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 20.10.2013 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Mumbai. One male child was born out of the said wedlock on 23.09.2015. However, on account of temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are living separately since 23.11.2020.
3. As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by the petitioners. FIR No. 111/2021 was lodged at instance of Respondent No. 2 at P.S Vikaspuri, Delhi under sections 498A/406 IPC against the petitioner no. 1. Chargesheet has since been filed under sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners.
4. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing in the form of a Settlement Deed dated 24.09.2024 (attested on 11.12.2024). Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, marriage between Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 28.01.2025. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1 has paid the total settlement amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five lacs only) as per the schedule in settlement. It is further submitted that the custody of the minor child would be with respondent no. 2 with no visitation/custody rights to petitioner no. 1 except telephonic conversation based on child’s discretion. Copy of the Settlement Deed dated 01.09.2022 has been annexed as Annexure B.
5. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 are physically present before the Court while petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have entered their appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer W/SI Priya from PS Vikaspuri.
6. Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she confirms that she has received the total settlement amount and has no objection if the FIR No. 111/2021 is quashed against the Petitioners.
7. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 111/2021 is quashed.
8. In Rangappa Javoor vs The State Of Karnataka And Another, Diary No. 33313/2019, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74, Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes by observing as under:- “This court has held that in cases of offences relating to matrimonial disputes, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed by exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or even under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
9. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-
10. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58, Hon’ble Supreme Court has encouraged courts to quash proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. in case of settlements in matrimonial disputes to secure the ends of justice, even if offences are non-compoundable by observing as under:-
16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.
11. Further, it has been observed in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 that:
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.”
12. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this court considers that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement out of their own free will, without any fear, force or coercion and they should be given an opportunity to lead their lives peacefully. No purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 111/2021, dated 06.03.2021, registered at P.S Vikaspuri, Delhi under section 498A/406 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.
13. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR NO. 111/2021, dated 06.03.2021, registered at P.S Vikaspuri, Delhi under section 498A/406 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.
14. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J August 19, 2025