Appearance not given v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

W.P.(CRL) 1483/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1483/2025 MUKUL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Appearance not given. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC for State with Mr. Abhimanyu Tomar, SI, PS-Karawal Nagar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 31.07.2025 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 40/20253 under Sections 110/351(2)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234 registered at P.S. Karawal Nagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution against the Petitioners arises from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging that on 30th January, 2025, he was informed by his brother, Aasu Sharma, that he was being assaulted by the Petitioners at the Snooker CafØ. Respondent No. 2 immediately rushed to the location and witnessed the Petitioners physically 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” 3 “impugned FIR” 4 “BNS” 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 05/08/2025 at 12:23:32 W.P.(CRL) 1483/2025 Page 2 of 5 assaulting his brother. It is alleged that the incident occurred on the occasion of Petitioner No. 1’s birthday, and the Petitioners were under the influence of alcohol. When Respondent No. 2 attempted to intervene, the Petitioners targeted him and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, outside the CafØ, the Petitioners allegedly attacked him again, this time using sharp objects and bricks, causing serious injuries. Based on the said complaint, the impugned FIR was registered. 3. The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondent No. 2 has amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioners and has decided not to pursue the impugned FIR against them. Pursuant to this settlement, a Memorandum of Understanding5 dated 8th April, 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, Respondent No. 2, who has appeared before the Court in person, and is identified by the Investigating Officer, has unequivocally stated that he does not wish to pursue the impugned 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 and are duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all 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 05/08/2025 at 12:23:32 W.P.(CRL) 1483/2025 Page 3 of 5 proceedings arising therefrom. 6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 110 of BNS is non-compoundable, Section 351(2) is compoundable at the instance of the person so intimidated. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 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.6 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 Supplied] 7. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,7 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: 5 “MoU” 6 (2012) 10 SCC 303 7 (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 05/08/2025 at 12:23:32 W.P.(CRL) 1483/2025 Page 4 of 5 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] 8. Although the offence under Section 110 of BNS 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 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 05/08/2025 at 12:23:32 W.P.(CRL) 1483/2025 Page 5 of 5 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. The Complainant 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 9. However, since the State machinery was set in motion, the ends of justice will be served if the Petitioners are put to cost. 10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 40/2025, P.S. Karawal Nagar, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of a cost of INR 10,000/- each by Petitioners No. 1 and 8, and a cost of INR ₹7,500/- each by the rest of the Petitioners, with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within six weeks from today. Proof of payment be submitted to the concerned IO. 11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 31, 2025 nk