Jai Bhagwan & Ors. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010510332026
+ CRL.M.C. 7964/2026
JAI BHAGWAN & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Rakesh
Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr.
Praveen Sehrawat, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mohd. Naved and Mr.
Mayank Chaudhary, Advs.
SI Lal Chand, PS S. B. Dairy.
Mr. Rahul Luther, Mr. Deepak
Rajwar, Mr. Amber Chaurasia, Mr.
Sahil, Mr. Madhur Bhardwaj and Mr.
Akshay, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) [corresponding to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)], seeking quashing of FIR
No.164/2019 dated 04.04.2019, registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy,
Outer North District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC”), together with all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married on 19.02.2017 in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 1 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the
said wedlock. Petitioner no.2 is the mother of petitioner no.1; petitioner
nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of petitioner no.1; and petitioner no.5 is the
brother of petitioner no.1.
3. The FIR makes serious allegations against the petitioners, inter alia, of
demands for dowry, cruelty and misappropriation of the stridhan and dowry
articles of respondent no.2. It further records that the parties have been
living separately since 02.09.2018.
4. The parties have entered into a compromise deed/settlement
agreement dated 18.08.2025, which has been placed on record as Annexure
P-4 to the present petition. The same reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 2 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 3 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 4 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 5 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 6 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
5. It is stated that, in terms of the settlement, the marriage between
petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce,
and that the settlement amount of Rs.4,00,000/- stands paid to respondent
no.2 by way of demand draft at the time of recording of her statement in the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 7 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
first motion.
6. Respondent no.2 is present in Court. She affirms that the compromise
deed was executed by her out of her own free will and volition and without
any undue pressure, coercion or influence. She has also filed an affidavit
stating that she has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR, and that
she does not wish to proceed further against the petitioners, all disputes
between the parties having been resolved amicably.
7. The petitioners and respondent no.2 undertake to remain bound by the
terms of the aforesaid compromise deed.
8. The concerned Investigating Officer has identified petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2, who are physically present in Court. The remaining
petitioners have appeared through video conferencing and have also been
identified by the Investigating Officer.
9. It is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it has been observed
as under:
“ 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
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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 8 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
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 .”
10. The said principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it has been held 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:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 9 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 10 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
11. Specifically in the context of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme
Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi , (2013) 4 SCC 58,
has held as under:
“14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of
the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC
675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], this Court has upheld the powers of
the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings
where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered
into between the parties who are willing to settle their
differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is
directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought
to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the
settlement arrived at.
15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same
are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-
compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the
Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably
and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of
securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a
bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the
subsequent criminal proceedings.”
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the dispute
between the parties is matrimonial and essentially private in nature. The
offences alleged do not fall within the category of heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity, or offences such as murder, rape or dacoity,
which have a serious impact on society. The parties have amicably resolved
all their disputes in terms of the compromise deed; the marriage stands
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 11 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20
dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent; no child was born out of
the wedlock; the parties have been living separately since 02.09.2018, i.e.
for over eight years; the settlement amount stands paid; and respondent no.2,
who is the complainant and the principal prosecution witness, is present in
Court and has affirmed the settlement as well as her no objection to the
quashing of the FIR. In these circumstances, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak.
13. Accordingly, in view of the joint request of the parties, and
considering the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra), there is no
impediment in allowing the present petition.
14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.164/2019 dated
04.04.2019, registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Outer North
District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, qua all the petitioners, stands quashed.
15. The present petition, along with all pending application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in the above terms.
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ cl/sd SACHIN DATTA, J
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7964/2026 Page 12 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
15:29:20