Kamal Mehroliya vs State & Anr on 28 October, 2025

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Kamal Mehroliya vs State & Anr on 28 October, 2025

1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 241/2023, registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S. Badarpur and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

"BNSS"

CRL.M.C. 7553/2025 Page 1 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/10/2025 at 22:13:06

2. The Petitioner is the husband of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13th March, 2007, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Parties have two children from the said marriage. Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, pursuant to which they started residing separately. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioner, alleging that he was in the habit of consuming excessive alcohol and, often quarrelled with her under its influence. It was specifically alleged that on 16 th July, 2023, at about 3:30 PM, the Petitioner came to their residence in an intoxicated condition, where the parties' children were also present, and began misbehaving with the Complainant. When the Complainant objected to his behaviour, the Petitioner allegedly became enraged, picked up a kitchen knife, and stabbed her in the left thigh. The knife purportedly broke into two pieces; the sharp portion remained embedded in the Complainant's thigh, while the handle portion remained in the Petitioner's hand. Based on the Complainant's statement, the subject FIR came to be registered.

3. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the Petitioner. By order on charge dated 16th April, 2024, charges were framed against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 308 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. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Deed dated 3rd June, 2025 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts. As per the terms of the settlement, all matrimonial differences between the parties stand resolved, and they have been residing 2 "CrPC"

CRL.M.C. 7553/2025 Page 2 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

5. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, gives no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She submits that she has been residing harmoniously with the Petitioner for the past one and a half years; that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment and the Petitioner had no intention to kill her. The Petitioner was pertinently under the influence of alcohol. He has acknowledged his mistake and apologized to her which she has accepted. The Petitioner has since given up alcohol consumption and takes proper care of her and their children and provides maintenance to both of them. She further states that she has no surviving grievance against the Petitioner. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Sections 308 and 324 of the IPC are non-compoundable, it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.3 has held as follows:

"11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the 3 (2012) 10 SCC 303 CRL.M.C. 7553/2025 Page 3 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent no.1 & 2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an an exercise in futility."

[Emphasis added]

7. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,4 the Supreme Court held 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:

29.1. 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 4 (2014) 6 SCC 466 CRL.M.C. 7553/2025 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/10/2025 at 22:13:06 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]

8. Although the offence under Section 308 of the IPC cannot be treated as strictly 'in personam', and it touches upon public concerns rather than being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also account for the practical realities of securing a conviction in the present case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where the complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction becomes exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest.

9. The Complainant in the present case has categorically expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed that she is harmoniously residing with her husband along with their children. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and in view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds the present case to be an appropriate one for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 241/2023, P.S. Badarpur, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

11. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the CRL.M.C. 7553/2025 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/10/2025 at 22:13:06 impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to deposit costs of INR 5,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit be furnished to the concerned Investigating Officer.

12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.

13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 28, 2025 as CRL.M.C. 7553/2025 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/10/2025 at 22:13:06

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders