% 12.09.2025

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 329/2024 dated 20th June, 2024, registered under Sections 498A / 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Sections 3 / 4 of 1 "BNSS"

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2025 at 22:14:39 the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19614 at P.S. Fatehpur Beri, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2, while Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are her in-laws. The marriage (Nikah) between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 27th April, 2023, in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, and they started living separately.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioners, alleging that she had been subjected to cruelty, which ultimately led to the registration of the impugned FIR.

4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. The parties resolved all issues before the Mediation Centre, Garhwa, and Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 executed a Mediation Agreement dated 12th August, 2024. Under the said agreement, Petitioner No. 1 undertook to pay a total sum of INR 6,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2. In terms of the settlement, both parties agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various courts.

5. In view of the above, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who has joined the proceedings through the Video Conferencing mechanism and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and states that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. She further affirms that she has received the entire settlement amount in terms of the Mediation 4 " DP Act "

6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, while the offence under Section 506 IPC is compoundable in certain cases, the offences under Section 498A IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable. However, it is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2025 at 22:14:39 While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

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]

7. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,6 the Supreme Court had observed as under:

The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The 6 (2017) 9 SCC 641 W.P.(CRL) 446/2025 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2025 at 22:14:39 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 W.P.(CRL) 446/2025 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2025 at 22:14:39 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]

8. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

9. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 329/2024 dated 20th June, 2024, registered under Sections 498A / 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Fatehpur Beri, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

10. The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement.

11. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with any pending application(s).

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2025/ab W.P.(CRL) 446/2025 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2025 at 22:14:39