CRL.M.C./1212/2025 of DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 1212/2025

DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS

.....PetitionersThrough:Mr.NeerajKumarDwivedi,Advocate.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR......Respondents

Through:Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP forState with SI Anuradha, PS HarshVihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R%28.03.2025

CRL.M.A. 5424/2025 (Exemption)

1.Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

2.The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempteddocuments, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.3.Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.CRL.M.C. 1212/2025

4.The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973[2]) seeks quashing of FIR No. 335/2016[3]registered underSections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[4]and Section 4 of the

1 “BNSS”

2 “Cr.P.C.”

3 “the impugned FIR”

4 “IPC”

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[5]at P.S. Harsh Vihar and all other proceedingsemanating therefrom.

5.Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2and 3 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between PetitionerNo. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 8[th]February, 2011 as perHindu rites and ceremonies. Two children namely are born from the saidmarriage. However, due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between theparties deteriorated. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to noavail.

6.Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made complaint against Petitioners,alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminatedinto the impugned FIR. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed. However, byorder dated 7[th]May, 2019, Petitioner No. 1 was declared as ProclaimedOffender by the Metropolitan Magistrate. On 26[th]February, 2024, PetitionerNo. 1 had surrendered before the Court.

7.The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicablysettled between the parties on their own free will, without any coercion,pressure or undue influence and Settlement Deed dated 17[th]February,2024 has been executed by Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. As perthe terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw allproceedings pending before various Courts and have started living together.In light of the settlement between the parties, the Metropolitan Magistratecancelled proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.

8.On 18[th]March, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recordedbefore the Joint Registrar and after verification of all critical aspects, the

5 “the Dowry Prohibition Act”

Joint Registrar passed the following order:

“Today, statement of respondent no. 2 & petitioner no. 1 has beenrecorded to ascertain the veracity and the genuineness of the partiesentering into settlement.

Respondent no. 2 lodged FIR No. 335/2016. Under Section 498-A/34/174-A IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at PS Haish Vihar, Delhiagainst the petitioner.

Respondent no. 2 states that she has voluntarily and without any pressureor coercion from anyone and with the intervention of friends and wellwishers settled all issues and disputes with all the petitioners; and out oher free will have entered into compromise/MOU/Settlement dated17.02.2024 which is on record as Annexure P-2 at page no. 37 onwardsbearing her signatures.

As per settlement, Respondent no. 2 is happily residing with the petitionerno. 1 (Sh. Deepak Kumar) in rented accommodation. Respondent no. 2 isresiding peacefully with the petitioner after reconciling all the issues anddisputes which had occurred due to some misunderstanding.

As per the settlement, Respondent no. 2 has no objection if FIR bearingNo. 335/2016, Under Section 498-A/34/I74-A IPG & Section 4 DowryProhibition Act. registered at PS Harsh Vihar, Delhi and all proceedingsemanating there from are quashed by the Hon'ble Court qua all thepetitioners. There is no other case pending between the parties.Respondent no. 2 undertakes to withdraw all other cases, if any remaining.

Respondent no. 2 & petitioner no. 1 has been identified by their counsels.Separate statement of petitioner recorded to the effect that he will dulymaintain Respondent & abide by all terms and conditions of thesettlement. This pre verified report along with the petition may be placedbefore the Hon’ble Court on 28[th]March, 2025 alongwith the statementsrecorded today.”

9.In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly prayed for thequashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before thisCourt, confirms her statement made to the Court and gives no objection tothe quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect is also onrecord.

10.The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offenceunder Sections 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is non-compoundable while offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable incertain cases.

11.It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powersunder Section 582 of BNSS (formerly 482 of Cr.P.C.), can compoundoffences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is acompromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh& Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,[6]the Supreme Court laid down guidelinesfor High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties andquashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decisionread as under:

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down thefollowing principles by which the High Court would be guided in givingadequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising itspower under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement andquashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to bedistinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound theoffences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 ofthe Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminalproceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where theparties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power isto be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basispetition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factorin such cases would be to secure:(i) ends of justice, or(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on

6 (2014) 6 SCC 466

either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions whichinvolve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences likemurder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature andhave serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged tohave been committed under special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by public servants whileworking in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis ofcompromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly andpredominantlycivilcharacter,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship orfamily disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved theirentire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as towhether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuationof criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudiceand extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminalcases.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

12.Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

& Anr.,[7]the Supreme Court had observed as under:

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on thesubject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court toprevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends ofjustice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises andpreserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash firstinformation report or criminal proceeding on the ground that asettlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is notthe same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compoundingan offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court isgoverned by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal

7 (2017) 9 SCC 641

Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted evenif the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether criminal proceeding or complaintshould be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, theHigh Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify theexercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has wide ambit andplenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) toprevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether complaint or first information reportshould be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settledthe dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of eachcase and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealingwith plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must havedue regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and seriousoffences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rapeand dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or thefamily of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, trulyspeaking, not private in nature but have serious impact upon society.The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on theoverriding element of public interest in punishing persons for seriousoffences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal caseswhich have an overwhelming or predominant element of civil dispute.They stand on distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherentpower to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,financial,mercantile,partnershiporsimilartransactionswithanessentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashingwhere parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding ifin view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of aconviction is remote and the continuation of criminal proceeding wouldcause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and

economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond thedomain of mere dispute between private disputants. The High Courtwould be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved inan activity akin to financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. Theconsequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economicsystem will weigh in the balance.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

13.Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the partieshave amicably entered into settlement, this Court is of the opinion that thepresent case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582 of BNSS as nopurpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of theproceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

14.In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 335/2016 and allconsequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.15.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

MARCH 28, 2025/PB

SANJEEV NARULA, J