Mr. Raja Ram Tripathi, Adv v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 & CRL.M.A. 5989/2025 RAM CHANDER YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raja Ram Tripathi, Adv. Petitioner in person versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Alok Sharma & Mr. Suyash Varshney, Advs. SI Mahesh Kumawat, PS- Bhalswa Dairy Mr. Akhilesh K Srivastava (through VC), Mr. Rakesh & Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advs. for R2 R2 in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 04.09.2025 1.The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 435/2016 dated 21.08.2016, registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, for offences under Sections 193/420/467/468/471/ 474/385/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2.It is alleged that Respondent No. 2/complainant is the landlord and owner of Shop No. B-51, Gali No. 2/1 (Plot No. 501/1) (Khasra No. 183) Krishna Enclave, Kabari Wali Gali, Near Tyre Godown, Mukundpur, Part-II, Delhi – 110042 (hereafter ‘the subject property’). It is alleged that on 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 2 of 6 14.02.2006, Respondent No. 2 rented some portion of the subject property to the petitioner. It is alleged that since the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are distant relatives, no formal agreement in regard to the rent payable in respect of the subject property was executed between the parties. 3.It is alleged that from 14.05.2007, the petitioner did not pay any rent to Respondent No. 2, and also failed to vacate the subject property when asked to do so by Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 filed an eviction petition no. 98/10 titled as Sh. Chottey Lal Yadav v. Sh. Ram Chander Yadav which was dismissed on the ground that no documentary evidence was brought to establish the landlord tenant relationship between the parties. It is alleged that in the said case, the petitioner portrayed himself to be owner of the said portion of the subject property and also produced false and fabricated documents to prove his ownership over the subject property. This incident led to registration of the abovementioned FIR. 4.The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.12.2024, of their own free will without any force, pressure or coercion. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner has also handed over the possession of the subject property to Respondent No. 2. 5.The parties are present in person in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 6.On being asked, the complainant states that the petitioner is his brother-in-law and that with the intervention of the family members, all the disputes between them have already been resolved. He states that considering their relationship and that the 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 3 of 6 terms of the settlement have already been complied with, he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 7.Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Sections 385/467/468/471/474 of the IPC are non-compoundable. 8.It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya 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 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 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” (emphasis supplied) 9.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 precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the 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. 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not 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 interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 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 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 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) 10.It is pointed out that no investigation has been carried out in the present FIR pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 11.Be that as it may, since 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 528 of the BNSS. 12.In view of the above, FIR No. 435/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 13.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 14.Pending application also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, JSEPTEMBER 4, 2025 ‘SS’

W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 & CRL.M.A. 5989/2025 RAM CHANDER YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raja Ram Tripathi, Adv. Petitioner in person versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Alok Sharma & Mr. Suyash Varshney, Advs. SI Mahesh Kumawat, PS- Bhalswa Dairy Mr. Akhilesh K Srivastava (through VC), Mr. Rakesh & Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advs. for R2 R2 in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 04.09.2025 1.The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 435/2016 dated 21.08.2016, registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, for offences under Sections 193/420/467/468/471/ 474/385/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2.It is alleged that Respondent No. 2/complainant is the landlord and owner of Shop No. B-51, Gali No. 2/1 (Plot No. 501/1) (Khasra No. 183) Krishna Enclave, Kabari Wali Gali, Near Tyre Godown, Mukundpur, Part-II, Delhi – 110042 (hereafter ‘the subject property’). It is alleged that on 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 2 of 6 14.02.2006, Respondent No. 2 rented some portion of the subject property to the petitioner. It is alleged that since the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are distant relatives, no formal agreement in regard to the rent payable in respect of the subject property was executed between the parties. 3.It is alleged that from 14.05.2007, the petitioner did not pay any rent to Respondent No. 2, and also failed to vacate the subject property when asked to do so by Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 filed an eviction petition no. 98/10 titled as Sh. Chottey Lal Yadav v. Sh. Ram Chander Yadav which was dismissed on the ground that no documentary evidence was brought to establish the landlord tenant relationship between the parties. It is alleged that in the said case, the petitioner portrayed himself to be owner of the said portion of the subject property and also produced false and fabricated documents to prove his ownership over the subject property. This incident led to registration of the abovementioned FIR. 4.The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.12.2024, of their own free will without any force, pressure or coercion. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner has also handed over the possession of the subject property to Respondent No. 2. 5.The parties are present in person in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 6.On being asked, the complainant states that the petitioner is his brother-in-law and that with the intervention of the family members, all the disputes between them have already been resolved. He states that considering their relationship and that the 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 3 of 6 terms of the settlement have already been complied with, he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 7.Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Sections 385/467/468/471/474 of the IPC are non-compoundable. 8.It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya 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 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 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” (emphasis supplied) 9.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 precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the 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. 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not 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 interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 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 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 18/09/2025 at 12:35:45 W.P.(CRL) 645/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 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) 10.It is pointed out that no investigation has been carried out in the present FIR pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 11.Be that as it may, since 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 528 of the BNSS. 12.In view of the above, FIR No. 435/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 13.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 14.Pending application also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, JSEPTEMBER 4, 2025 ‘SS’