CRL.M.C./3702/2025 of DEEPAK CHAUHAN & ORS. Vs THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI AND OTHERS)THROUGH SHO & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 3702/2025

DEEPAK CHAUHAN & ORS.

.....Petitioners

Through:Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate withPetitioners in person

versus

THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI AND OTHERS)THROUGH SHO& ANR......Respondents

.....Respondents

Through:Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the Statewith SI Vineesha, PS Sarojini NagarMr.RupenderSingh,Ms.Swati,Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R%09.09.2025

1.The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](earlier Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973[2]) seeks quashing of FIR No. 465/2021 under Sections498A/406//34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3], registered at P.S. SarojiniNagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom. During investigation, thepolice added Sections 354/354B/506/34 IPC and filed charge-sheetaccordingly.

2.Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2to 7 are the in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner

1 “BNSS”2 “Cr.P.C.”

No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30[th]November, 2020, as perHindu rites and ceremonies. Parties have no child from the said marriage.Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties separated. complaint byRespondent No. 2 led to the FIR and, after investigation, to the charge-sheetunder the aforesaid provisions.

3.The quashing petition rests on settlement between the parties.Indeed, in furtherance of the consents, parties have obtained divorce bymutual consent and the settlement terms stand implemented.

4.Ordinarily, this Court, consistent with settled precedent, doesentertain quashing of FIRs confined to Sections 498A/406 IPC where theparties have genuinely resolved their matrimonial disputes. Here, however,the State opposes quashing on the ground that the FIR contains grave andspecific allegations of sexual assault by the father-in-law and brother-in-law,in addition to matrimonial-cruelty/dowry allegations.

5.The Court has carefully interacted with the complainant. She affirmedthat the sexual-assault allegations in the FIR are correct, but expressed adesire to “move on” and not pursue the case in view of the settlement andthe divorce decree.

6.The contours of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction are well settled.Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) is to beexercised sparingly, inter alia, where the allegations, even if taken at facevalue, do not disclose any offence; are absurd or inherently improbable; orwhere continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.[4]Atthe same time, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that heinous or

3 “IPC”

4 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

CRL.M.C. 3702/2025Page 2 of 4

serious offences, especially those implicating sexual assault or offences withsocietal impact, are not ordinarily quashed on settlement, as these areoffences against society at large and not merely private disputes.[5]

7.In rape/sexual-offence cases, the Court has been categorical thatcompromise or marriage/settlement cannot be passport out of criminalliability.[6]

8.Offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, being, in essence,matrimonial/dowry-property disputes, have often been quashed where theCourt is satisfied that the settlement is voluntary, the dispute is genuinelyprivate, and the chance of conviction is remote. But the presence of Section354/354B IPC with specific allegations of sexual assault fundamentallyalters the analysis. The FIR contains specific accusations that the father-in-law and brother-in-law sexually assaulted the complainant. The Complainanthas affirmed the truth of those accusations during her interaction with thisCourt. At the quashing stage, the Court does not weigh credibility; it askswhether, assuming the truth of the allegations, the ingredients of theoffences are disclosed. On the face of the FIR and the charge-sheet, they are.

9.The Complainant’s desire to disengage, while respected, cannot byitself eclipse the public interest in prosecuting grave sexual-offenceallegations.

10.In view of the gravity and nature of the sexual-assault allegations; thejurisprudence relating to quashing of FIR relating to serious, non-compoundable offences on settlement; and the Complainant’s affirmationthat the allegations are true, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent

5 Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, (2025) 5 SCC 117.

6 Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 318; State of M.P. v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681.

CRL.M.C. 3702/2025

Page 3 of 4

jurisdiction to quash the FIR or the proceedings.

11.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.12.It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confinedsolely to the adjudication of the present petition, and shall not influence themerits of the case before the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall proceedindependently and uninfluenced by these observations. The Trial Court shallalso ensure that the Complainant’s statement is recorded in manner thatensures her safety, dignity, and comfort.

13.With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of, alongwith pending applications.

SEPTEMBER 9, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J

CRL.M.C. 3702/2025