% 29.08.2025

1. The present petition filed under 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. 299/2021 dated 17th April, 2021, registered under Sections 498A / 406 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The Petitioner is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Their marriage was solemnized on 12th March, 2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and from this marriage, they have two children. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties 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 03/09/2025 at 21:53:46 deteriorated and they started living separately.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the Petitioner and his relatives, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the impugned FIR.

4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence and the parties have entered into a settlement on 18th July, 2024, before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. As per its terms, the parties have resolved all their disputes and differences and Respondent No. 2 has given her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Further, pursuant to the agreement, the parties have started residing together once again. A copy of the agreement is duly placed on record.

5. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court in person and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and consents to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Although, it is noted, that the Complainant has levelled allegations against the Petitioner and other family members, however, in the chargesheet, only the Petitioner's name has been mentioned in column no. 11, whereas all the other family members' names are mentioned in column no. 12. Although cognizance has not been taken, nonetheless, the Complainant states that she has does not any subsisting grievance against the Petitioner or any of the other persons named originally in the FIR. She states that she has been happily living with her husband and her husband's attitude towards her is now cordial. Accordingly, she has no grievance against the Petitioner. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the CRL.M.C. 6059/2025 Page 2 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 03/09/2025 at 21:53:46 impugned FIR.

6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable offence, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

7. 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.,4 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:

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either 4 (2014) 6 SCC 466 CRL.M.C. 6059/2025 Page 3 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 03/09/2025 at 21:53:46 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]

8. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,5 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 5 (2017) 9 SCC 641 CRL.M.C. 6059/2025 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 03/09/2025 at 21:53:46 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 CRL.M.C. 6059/2025 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 03/09/2025 at 21:53:46 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]

9. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement and are now residing together, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 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.

10. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 299/2021 dated 17th April, 2021, registered under Sections 498A / 406 / 34 of IPC at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

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

12. It is clarified that the settlement shall not affects the rights of the minor children.

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

SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 29, 2025/MK CRL.M.C. 6059/2025 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 03/09/2025 at 21:53:46