Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjay Narula, J
AMAN VERMA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 6039/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Dargar Maheshwari
For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar
The court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if the parties reach an amicable settlement, considering the nature of the dispute and public interest.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - Offences under IPC - Petition to quash an FIR for non-compoundable offences in light of a mutual settlement reached between parties, which was duly acknowledged and confirmed by Respondent No. 2 - Court emphasized that the nature of offences determines the applicability of settlement principles from previous judgments. (Paras 6-10)
(B) Quashing of FIR - High Court's power under Section 528 - Inherent power of quashing non-compoundable offences - Cases involving overwhelming civil elements, particularly family disputes, are suitable for quashing when settled amicably - The consideration of whether prosecution serves public interest. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
Parties were involved in matrimonial discord leading to an FIR regarding allegations of cruelty; however, they entered into a settlement agreement to withdraw the proceedings. (Paras 2-9)
Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to quash FIR based on the amicable resolution between the parties that ensured no prejudice to the rights of the minor child. (Paras 10-11)
Issues: Whether a mutual settlement allows quashing of criminal proceedings in light of non-compoundable offences. (Paras 6-9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled on the applicability of inherent powers for quashing FIRs in cases settled amicably while emphasizing the importance of context and nature of the offences. (Paras 8-10)
Result: The impugned FIR and proceedings are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties have marital issues leading to an fir based on allegations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. settlement reached between parties with financial terms and child custody. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion of quashing firs and inherent judicial powers. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. court's ruling on non-compoundable offences and public interest. (Para 8 , 10) |
O R D E R
% 28.08.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [$~56] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , [2“CrPC”]) seeks quashing of FIR No. 355/2019 registered under Sections 498A /406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , [3“ IPC ”] at P.S.
Ranhola, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 2 to 5 are in-laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 28th April, 2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Parties have one child from this marriage. However, due to
CRL.M.C.6039/2025 Page1of matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately since 22nd January, 2017.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the impugned FIR. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under the aforesaid provisions as well as Section 354 of the IPC .
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 entered into a settlement dated 28th February, 2024 before the Counselling Cell, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts. In terms thereof, the parties have executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23rd July, 2025, whereby the Petitioners have agreed to pay a total sum of INR 1,75,000/- to Respondent No. 2, who in turn, has agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. In terms of the MoU, the custody of the minor child rests with Respondent No. 2. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a divorce.
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. In accordance with the Agreement, the Petitioners have tendered the settlement amount by way of a demand draft bearing DD No. 812359 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank for an amount of INR 1,75,000/- to CRL.M.C.6039/2025 Page2of Respondent No. 2 during the proceedings. The same has been duly received and acknowledged by Respondent no. 2.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offences under Sections 498A and 354 of the IPC are 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 pro
