✦ High Court of India · 21 Dec 2022

Mr. Akbar Kaleem and Mr. Samar Gulrez, Advocates with v. STATE NCT OF DELHI ORS

Case Details High Court of India · 21 Dec 2022

Court

High Court of India

Decided

21 Dec 2022

Bench

Not available

Length

1,880 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §482 Code of Criminal Procedure §528 Code of Criminal Procedure Indian Penal Code §186 Indian Penal Code §324 Indian Penal Code §324 and 34 Indian Penal Code

Cited in this judgment

CRL.M.C. 2818/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2818/2025 & CRL.M.A. 12581/2025 MOHD ARIF & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Akbar Kaleem and Mr. Samar Gulrez, Advocates with Petitioners (in-Persons). versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for R-1. SI Govind Kumar, P.S. Chandni Mahal. Respondent No. 2 (in-Person). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 01.08.2025 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. 431/2022 dated 22nd December, 2022, registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Chandni Mahal, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the Petitioners is as follows: 2.1 On 21st December 2022, upon receipt of DD No. 698, the ASI, along 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “IPC” 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 08/08/2025 at 15:19:22 CRL.M.C. 2818/2025 Page 2 of 6 with his team, proceeded to Shop No. 2429, Kamra Bungas, Chitli Qabar, the shop owned by Mohd. Arif (Petitioner No. 1). Upon arrival, it was discovered that a scuffle had taken place and that the injured person, Mohd. Afzal (the Complainant/Respondent No. 2) had already been taken to the hospital. 2.2. Upon reaching the hospital, the ASI could not record the statement of the Complainant as he was undergoing treatment. Subsequently, on 22nd December, 2022, at around 5:50 PM, the injured appeared at P.S. Chandni Mahal along with his wife and gave his statement. He alleged that on 21st December, 2022, at approximately 2:30 PM, he had visited Mohd. Arif’s shop to purchase some clothes for his wife. However, when he showed the clothes to his wife, she did not like them and asked to return them. Later that night, at around 10:00 PM, the injured went back to Arif’s shop, which he was closing up, to return the clothes. Arif allegedly refused to accept the returned items, which led to a verbal altercation. 2.3. Thereafter, Arif, along with his sons Faizan Khan (Petitioner No. 2) and Faisal Khan (Petitioner No. 3), allegedly began abusing the injured and assaulted him. It is alleged that the injured was struck twice on the head with a sharp object, causing him to bleed. When the injured began shouting for help, the Petitioners allegedly fled the scene. On the basis of the complaint, the impugned FIR was registered. Subsequently, a chargesheet has also been filed against the Petitioners, wherein it is noted that as per the MLC, the nature of injury returned ‘simple’ in nature. 3. The parties state that, with the intervention of elders, common friends and neighbours, Respondent No. 2 have amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioner and has decided not to pursue the present FIR against him. 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 08/08/2025 at 15:19:22 CRL.M.C. 2818/2025 Page 3 of 6 Pursuant to this settlement, a Memorandum of Understanding4 dated 20th January, 2025, was executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. 4. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioners and has agreed to voluntarily give his no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. 5. In view of the settlement, the Complainant, who has appeared before the Court in person, has unequivocally stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He has confirmed that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The Petitioners have also joined the proceedings in person. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. 6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Although the present case involves an offence under Section 324 of IPC, which is non-compoundable in nature, it is noted that the MLC returns the injuries as ‘simple’ in nature. 7. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of 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 4 “MoU” 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 08/08/2025 at 15:19:22 CRL.M.C. 2818/2025 Page 4 of 6 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] 8. 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 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 6 (2014) 6 SCC 466 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 08/08/2025 at 15:19:22 CRL.M.C. 2818/2025 Page 5 of 6 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. Although the offence under Section 324 of 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. 10. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 in the present case has categorically expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed the settlement as voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Given this background, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 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 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Sectio 482 of 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 08/08/2025 at 15:19:22 CRL.M.C. 2818/2025 Page 6 of 6 CrPC) to secure the ends of justice. 11. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 431/2022 dated 22nd December, 2022, registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Chandni Mahal, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of INR 3,500/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund. The proof of deposit be placed on record within a period of 15 days from today. 12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 1, 2025 as

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure