Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
HIMANSHU DINESH DUREJA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 6018/2025 | CRL.M.A. 25595/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Tanya Kathuri, Mr. Rajkumar, Mr. Saksham Kathuria
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Mr. Raj Kr. Tuli, Mr. Vicky Bhardwaj
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under settlement agreements reflecting mutual consent and without coercion.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR arising from marital discord and settled amicably - Court recognizes capacity to quash non-compoundable offences given mutual resolution between parties post-allegations of cruelty, thereby upholding the legality of settlement agreements. (Paras 6, 9, 10)
(B) Evidentiary Requirements - Compromise is key to quash FIR under non-compoundable offences, where the relationship now has primarily civil characteristics - Assessment of public interest and gravity in criminal proceedings discussed thoroughly. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petition arises from a marriage between the parties that faced disputes leading to FIR registration under IPC sections for cruelty against the wife, later settled amicably with a settlement deed and a decree of divorce.
Findings of Court:
Court acknowledges the amicable resolution and the received settlement amount, leading to quashing the FIR, stating no purpose serves by allowing proceedings to continue.
Issues: Assessing the viability to quash proceedings on terms of settled disputes in context of non-compoundable offences was a central issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court holds the inherent power to quash proceedings under Section 528, even if the offences are non-compoundable, evaluating the nature of the case and the settlement.
Result: The impugned FIR is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. high court's ability to quash non-compoundable firs based on amicable settlements. (Para 1 , 6 , 9) |
| 2. overview of the relationship and subsequent agreement for a mutual settlement. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. guiding principles for quashing based on the nature of offenses and settlement. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final decision allowing the quashing of the fir based on the mutual resolution. (Para 10 , 11) |
O R D E R
% 28.08.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [$~53] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , [2“CrPC”]) seeks quashing of FIR No. 0102/2019 registered under Sections 498A /406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , [3“ IPC ”] at P.S. Krishna Nagar, Delhi and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 2
CRL.M.C.6018/2025 Page1of is the mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 3rd May, 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Parties have no child from this marriage. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately since July
2018.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against inter alia the Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the impugned FIR. Upon conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the Petitioners.
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. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Deed dated 20th March, 2023 before the Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, whereby Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR 10,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2, who in turn, agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent through order dated 17th February, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
5. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms her statement made to the Court and gives no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She confirms that in terms of the Settlement Agreement, she CRL.M.C.6018/2025 Page2of has received the entire settlement amount of INR 10,00,000/-. In view of the settlement, the parties seek quashing of the subject FIR.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable while 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 (formerly 482 of Cr.P.C .), 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(2014)6SCC466] 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:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction tocontinuewiththecriminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482
