Ms. Jyoti Tewari, Adv v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv. SI Jitendra Yadav, PS- Mohan Garden ASI Harsh Kumar, PS- CPO Cell CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 46/2022 dated 17.01.2022, registered at Police Station Mohan Garden, for offence under Sections 392/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint made by Respondent No. 2.

2. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case under Sections 392/394/411/34 of the IPC.

3. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Signature Not Verified Respondent No. 2 thereby alleging that on 16.01.2022, when he Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:28.11.2025 13:08:16 was going back home after work, one person strangulated him from behind, while 2 other accused persons caught him from the front and threw him down. It is alleged that two of the accused persons ran away with the wallet of Respondent No.2. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested.

4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.01.2025, on their own free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

5. The complainant was exempted from personal appearance by order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court.

6. The petitioner is present in person and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

7. Respondent No.2, on 25.09.2025, had stated that he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and he has no objection if the same are quashed.

8. Offence under Section 411 of the IPC is compoundable in nature while the offences under 392/394 of the IPC are non- compoundable in nature.

9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:28.11.2025 13:08:16 case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:28.11.2025 13:08:16 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 offender. the victim and

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 entire themselves. disputes to whether to examine as

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court 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)

10. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :- “16. The broad principles which emerge from the subject, may be the precedents on summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:28.11.2025 13:08:16

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as cannot murder, appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not dacoity Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:28.11.2025 13:08:16 private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public punishing persons for serious offences. interest

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and the disputants,

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” (emphasis supplied)

11. This Court, by order dated 25.09.2025, noted submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Signature Not Verified the complainant had failed to identify the petitioner in his Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:28.11.2025 13:08:16 deposition.

12. Today, it is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that there is no evidence against the petitioner and he should be acquitted of the charged offences.

13. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings would only cause heartburn and would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

14. In view of the above, I find no impediment in passing the order directing quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, FIR No. 46/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the present petitioner and the petitioner is discharged from the present FIR.

17. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. NOVEMBER 18, 2025 (cid:147)SS(cid:148) AMIT MAHAJAN, J Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:28.11.2025 13:08:16