Mr. Varun Khera, Advocate along with v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS NIHAL VIHAR AND ANR

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 30/04/2025 at 15:56:32 CRL.M.C. 2433/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 2433/2025 RAJENDER PRASAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Varun Khera, Advocate along with petitioner in person. versus STATE THROUGH SHO PS NIHAL VIHAR AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State with ASI Surender, PS Nihal Vihar. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocates for R-2 along with R-2 in person. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 25.04.20251.The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 304/2017 dated 10.06.2017, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar for offences under Sections 288/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2.The chargesheet in the present case has been filed under Sections 287/338 of the IPC 3.The present FIR was registered on the basis of telephonic information from the Hospital in which Respondent No. 2 was admitted. 4.It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 while working in the factory of the petitioner got his right hand crushed between the roller machine. 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 30/04/2025 at 15:56:32 CRL.M.C. 2433/2025 Page 2 of 6 5.During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. 6.The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties without any threat, pressure, coercion or undue influence. 7.On 08.04.2025, Respondent No. 2 appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and gave a voluntary statement that the dispute has been amicably settled vide settlement dated 25.07.2024. 8.The statement of the parties has been duly recorded before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) by order dated 08.04.2025. 9.The parties are present in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 10.Respondent No.2 on being asked submits he has received the entire compensation amount from the petitioner and has no objection if the present FIR, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed. 11.Offence under Section 338 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offence under Section 288 of the IPC is non-compoundable. 12.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 proceedings in which offence is 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 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 30/04/2025 at 15:56:32 CRL.M.C. 2433/2025 Page 3 of 6 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 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) 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 30/04/2025 at 15:56:32 CRL.M.C. 2433/2025 Page 4 of 6 13.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. 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 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 30/04/2025 at 15:56:32 CRL.M.C. 2433/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 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) 14.From a perusal of the FIR and the chargesheet annexed with the present petition, it appears to be a case of accident. The present accident seems to be one of the incidents for which the conviction of the petitioner does not appear to be probable given the fact that the parties have already settled the matter. 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. 15.However, in view of this court, the compensation that has 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 30/04/2025 at 15:56:32 CRL.M.C. 2433/2025 Page 6 of 6 been paid to Respondent No. 2 is less. The petitioner on being asked, has agreed to pay an additional amount of ₹75,000/- to Respondent No. 2. 16.Keeping the aforesaid in mind in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served if the complainant is adequately compensated. The complainant is satisfied with the compensation amount. 17.In view of the above, FIR No. 304/2017 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of ₹75,000/- to the Respondent no.2 within a period of two months. 18.Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO. 19.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, JAPRIL 25, 2025/DU