BITTU YADAV ALIAS SHIVSHANKAR AND ORS v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS DWARKA NORTH AND ORS

Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 0037/2018 under Sections 341, 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Dwarka North and all proceedings emanating therefrom. In this regard, it is noted that a chargesheet has already been filed before the ASJ, Dwarka Courts and the trial is ongoing.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution against the Petitioners is that on 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” 3 “IPC” CRL.M.C. 199/2025 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 07/03/2025 at 12:27:58 3rd February, 2018, the Complainant (Respondent No. 2), along with Neeraj (Respondent No. 3) went to attend the wedding celebrations of a common friend. The two reached the banquet hall where the said wedding celebrations were being held, at around 8:30 PM, and started drinking outside the hall. Later, at approximately 11:30 PM, when they went inside to eat, they discovered that the food stalls had closed. Pertinently, Petitioners, who had been engaged as confectioners (Halwais) for the event, were still present at the venue. The Complainant approached them and asked for food. However, an altercation ensued between the Complainant and the Petitioners, during which one of the Petitioners allegedly struck the Complainant on the head with an iron palta—a utensil commonly used in confectionary preparation.

3. When Respondent No. 3, Neeraj, noticed the commotion and attempted to intervene, he too was struck on the head with an iron rod, causing him to collapse. The altercation was eventually broken up by bystanders, after which the Complainant rushed Neeraj to the hospital. The Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report confirmed that Neeraj had sustained a grievous head injury. Consequently, based on the Complainant’s statement, the subject FIR was registered on 5th February, 2018, under Sections 341, 308, and 34 of the IPC, and subsequently, a chargesheet was filed.

4. The parties state that, on 24th December, 2024, with the intervention of family friends and other respected members of society, Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant) and Respondent No. 3 (injured person Neeraj) amicably resolved the dispute and decided not to pursue the present FIR against the CRL.M.C. 199/2025 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 07/03/2025 at 12:27:58 Petitioners. Pursuant to this settlement, a Memorandum of Understanding4 dated 24th December, 2024, was executed between the Petitioners and Respondents No. 2 and 3.

5. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant) and Respondent No. 3 (Neeraj) have mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioners. In furtherance of the settlement, Petitioners have paid a total compensation of INR 50,000/- to Respondents No. 2 and 3. The parties have also mutually agreed to seek quashing of FIR No. 37/2018, and Respondents No. 2 and 3 have voluntarily given their no- objection to the same.

6. In view of the settlement, the Complainant, who has appeared before the Court via video conferencing, has unequivocally stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He has further confirmed that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. Additionally, the Petitioners have also joined the proceedings through video conferencing and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

7. Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State, points out that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the present FIR, are at advanced stage before the Trial Court. He submits that the statement of Respondent No. 2 has already been recorded during trial, wherein he has supported the case of the prosecution. 4 “MoU” CRL.M.C. 199/2025 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 07/03/2025 at 12:27:58

8. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 308 IPC is non-compoundable, Section 34 IPC is compoundable in certain circumstances. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 582 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.5 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 Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

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]

9. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,6 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