CRL.M.C./4234/2025 of PRATEEK LUTHRA & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 25 September 2026

O R D E R

%

25.09.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’]1 for quashing of FIR No. 0189/2023 dated 06.05.2023 under Sections 498-A/406/34 India Penal Code 1860 [‘IPC’], Police Station Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi and proceedings, emanating therefrom, on behalf of the petitioners on the ground of compromise.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Naresh Chahar, learned APP, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

3. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are present in person and are identified by the counsel and the Investigating Officer [‘IO’].

4. It is stated that Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2; they were married on 26.10.2020. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 12.07.2021. No child was born out of the wedlock.

5. During separation, the Respondent No. 2 got a case registered vide FIR No. 0189/2023 dated 06.05.2023 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet, and charges were also framed against the Petitioners.

6. It is stated that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved all their disputes by way of a Settlement dated 25.02.2025, to put a quietus to the dispute. The said settlement contemplates payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of disputes. It is stated that the said amount was agreed to be paid in 3 instalments, namely, Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of recording the statements in the first motion petition under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [‘HMA’]; Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of recording of statements in the second motion petition under Section 13(B)(2) of the HMA; and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of quashing of the present FIR.

7. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, the marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, vide judgment dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Family Court in HMA No. 508/2025.

1 corresponding to Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’]

8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

9. Mr. Naresh Chahar, learned APP, states that the statements of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Respondent No. 2 have been recorded by the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 09.07.2025. In the statement of Respondent No. 2, she has confirmed the facts of having received the entire amount, entering into a settlement and having executed her affidavit recording her consent to quashing.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the statements of the parties recorded before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 09.07.2025.

11. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.2, which held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard- and-fast category can be prescribed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466

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 to continue with the criminal proceedings:

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

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in 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 either 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)

13. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and considering the chances of conviction of the Petitioners being remote and bleak, this Court is, therefore, of the view that there is no use continuing with proceedings of the present FIR as it would be misuse of the process of the Court and an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. Further, this Court is also of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

14. In view of the above, the FIR No. 0189/2023 dated 06.05.2023 registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar, Delhi for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, chargesheet and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

15. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

16. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/msh/aj