AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (pari materia to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 0015/2024, dated 10.04.2024, registered at P.S. Crime (Women) Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34/354A/506 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), together with all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of the Settlement Agreement, dated 04.02.2026, entered into between the parties. The same is appended as Annexure P-3 to the present petition.
Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married on 25.11.2013, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock, on 14.02.2017 and 24.08.2018 respectively, both of whom are in the care and custody of respondent no.2. On account of temperamental differences, the parties have been living separately since 22.08.2023.
The subject FIR came to be registered on the complaint of respondent no.2 alleging demands of dowry, cruelty and retention of stridhan. In the course of investigation, Sections 354A and 506 IPC came to be added.
It is pointed out that the parties have settled all their disputes before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 04.02.2026.
The material terms of the settlement arrived at in the mediation proceedings dated 04.02.2026 are as under:
“Terms & Schedule of Settlement :
After understanding the process of mediation, aforesaid legal position involved in the settlement, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement on the terms and conditions as under :-
1.It is agreed between husband and wife that there is no possibility of reunion due to irreconcilable differences and as such, they have decided to separate their ways and go for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent in accordance with law as provided under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
***
4.It has been agreed between the parties that the husband Mr. Satyapal Bhati @ Satpal Bhati shall pay a total sum of ₹1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs only) to wife Ms. [respondent no.2] towards full and final settlement of all her claims including Istridhan, maintenance (present, past and future) and permanent alimony etc.
5.That aforementioned settlement amount₹1,50,00,000/ of -(Rupees one crore fifty lakhs only) shall be paid in the following manner:-
(1)₹50,00,000/ - (Rupees fifty lakhs only) - DD No.114292 drawn on Punjab National Bank Loni, Ghaziabad in the name of the wife -At the time of recording statements of parties in first motion under section 13B(1) HMA;
(2)₹50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) - Electronic mode/ DD in the name of minor son - At the time of recording statements of parties in first motion under section 13B(2) HMA;
(3)₹50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) - Electronic mode/ DD in the name of minor son - At the time of quashing of the FIR before Hon’ble High Court against the accused persons named in FIR (as stated hereinabove).
6.The wife undertakes that out of the above said settlement amount of ₹1,50,00,000/ - (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs only), a sum of ₹1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one core only) will be used for the welfare/ education of both the minor children.
7.It is also agreed between the parties that the permanent custody of both the minor children shall remain with their mother/ the wife and she will be the sole guardian of both the minor children. The husband undertakes that he will not claim custody / visitation rights towards the minor children in future.
***
9.It is further agreed between the parties that on completion of terms agreed above, they shall not be left with any claims towards each other and shall not litigate in future against each other qua this marriage.
***
Withdrawal/ Disposal :
It is agreed between the parties that Mr. Satyapal Bhati @ Satpal Bhati (husband) and his family members namely Sh. Ratan Singh Bhati (father-in-law), Smt Viramvati @ Virambati (mother-in-law), Sh. Chain Pal (brother-in-law) and Sh. Phirey Singh (Chachia susar), who are accused persons in the FIR No. 15/2024 shall file quashing petition before Hon’ble High Court within one month after grant of second motion petition and wife shall cooperate in quashing of the FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom against the above named accused persons including filing of affidavit and appearance in the Hon’ble High Court for the said purpose.
***
Free Consent of the Parties :
The parties, unequivocally declare that they have executed this agreement voluntarily, after fully understanding and appreciating the contents, scope, and effect thereof, as well as the consequences of the breach thereof along with the legal position explained hereinabove. They further declare that they are signing this agreement voluntarily after examining all probabilities and implications thereof, and without any kind of force, pressure, undue influence, misrepresentation, or mistake (both of law and fact), in any form, whatsoever, from any quarter.”
During the course of hearing, a bank draft of Rs.50,00,000/-, being the balance settlement amount, has been handed over to respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 confirms the receipt thereof.
The respondent no.2 as also the petitioners, have been identified by the concerned Investigating Officer, who is present in Court.
The respondent no.2 affirms that she has settled the matter of her own free will and volition, and without any undue pressure or influence. She has also placed on record an affidavit to the said effect, stating that she has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR as against the petitioners.
In terms of the settlement, the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as on 09.04.2026.
It is evident that the disputes between the parties arise wholly out of the matrimonial relationship and are private in character.
In this regard, 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 was 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 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)
The principles established in Gian Singh (supra) were further crystallised in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Paragraph 29 of the same reads as follows:
“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:
***
29.2.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.
***
29.4.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)
Specifically in the context of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58, remarked 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
It is noticed that the allegations under Section 354A IPC, which came to be added in the course of investigation and in respect of which only petitioner no.5 has been chargesheeted, relate to a single incident alleged to have occurred on 31.12.2023, during the course of the subsisting matrimonial disputes. While this Court is conscious of the gravity of an allegation of this nature, having interacted with respondent no.2, this Court is nonetheless of the view that the continuation of the proceedings, even qua petitioner no.5, is unwarranted, for the following reasons:
the settlement is comprehensive and expressly covers petitioner no.5, against whom the said allegation was made;
respondent no.2 has affirmed, during the course of hearing, that the allegation was made on account of a misunderstanding, and that she is not desirous of persuing it;
the allegation forms part of the very same complaint and arises in the course of the same marital discord; and
the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 stands dissolved and the entire settlement amount stands paid. To continue the prosecution qua petitioner no.5 alone would compel respondent no.2 to depose against her own categorical stand, years after the relationship between the parties has come to an end. As such, the continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
It is also apposite to refer to the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Prateek & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 6676/2024, decided on 28.08.2024. In the said case, the chargesheet had been filed against the brother-in-law of the complainant under Sections 498A/354/354A/34 IPC. This Court, whilst recognising that offences under Sections 354 and 354A IPC are serious in nature, nonetheless quashed the FIR by holding that the complainant having moved on in life, the continuation of the proceedings would only result in further harassment to the parties and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The relevant extracts read as under:
“14.It is not in doubt that the offences under Sections 354/354A/377 of the IPC are heinous in nature and involve mental depravity. Such offences cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences, in true sense, are not private in nature.
***
18.However, as noted above, the complainant has since moved on in her life. In such circumstances, the continuation of proceedings would only cause further undue harassment and heartburn to the parties.
19.Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.”
(emphasis supplied)
Similarly, in Rajat Bhatia & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1066/2025, decided on 30.04.2025, an FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/354A/509 IPC was quashed upon the parties having dissolved their marriage by mutual consent and having settled their disputes. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
“17.In these circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. In light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be a futile exercise and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.”
In the circumstances, the settlement dated 04.02.2026 furnishes a cogent basis for quashing the subject FIR. The prosecution arises out of private matrimonial disputes which the parties have voluntarily resolved, and its continuation would serve no fruitful purpose.
Considering the circumstances and the dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments, there is no impediment to allowing the present petition.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 0015/2024, dated 10.04.2024, registered at P.S. Crime (Women) Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34/354A/506 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua all the petitioners, stand quashed.
Since considerable judicial time and State resources have been consumed on account of the subject FIR, the petitioners agree to pay costs of ₹1,00,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC).
It is undertaken that the costs shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from today, and proof of payment shall be filed in the Registry of this Court. The said undertaking is accepted and taken on record.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
The pending application also stands disposed of.