Mr. Sahil Pahwa, Advocate along with v. THE STATE

CRL.M.C. 3547/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 3547/2025 & CRL.M.A. 15635/2025 GAURAV KAPOOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil Pahwa, Advocate along with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State with W/SI N. Tiamenla, PS Geeta Colony, ASI Sripal and ASI Satpal Singh, District Line East. Complainant in person. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 24.07.20251.The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 640/2020 dated 28.12.2020, registered at Police Station Geeta Colony for the offences punishable under Sections 354/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The chargesheet has been filed in the present matter. 2.The brief facts are that on 28.12.2020, the complainant’s son was beaten by the petitioner. Thereafter the complainant and her husband went to petitioner’s house, where the petitioner pushed and hit the complainant. The incident originated from a neighbourhood dispute involving a scuffle between the parties, which also led to the registration of a cross FIR No. 641/2020. 3.The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is 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 28/07/2025 at 11:57:29 CRL.M.C. 3547/2025 Page 2 of 6 amicably settled between the parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by way of Settlement dated 19.09.2024, out of their own free will, without any coercion, inducement, allurement, compulsion, or undue influence. 4.The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 5.On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that all the disputes have been settled. She states that the dispute essentially relates to a scuffle between children of the parties and the FIR was registered due to some misunderstanding and she has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 6.Offence under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas offence under Section 354 of the IPC is non-compoundable. 7.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 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 28/07/2025 at 11:57:29 CRL.M.C. 3547/2025 Page 3 of 6 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.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: 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 28/07/2025 at 11:57:29 CRL.M.C. 3547/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 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 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 28/07/2025 at 11:57:29 CRL.M.C. 3547/2025 Page 5 of 6 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) 9.The dispute seems to have arisen due to a scuffle between children of the parties. The parties had filed cross cases against each other. The parties, with the intervention of friends and other family members, have now finally decided to resolve their disputes. 10.Complainant states that FIR was registered due to some misunderstanding and she has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. The FIR was registered way back in the year 2020. Keeping the dispute alive especially when the parties have decided to bring all litigations between them to an end, would only cause unnecessary heart burn and would lead ill will to fester. 11.Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that 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 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 28/07/2025 at 11:57:29 CRL.M.C. 3547/2025 Page 6 of 6 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.However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost. 13.In view of the above, FIR No. 640/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹15,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society within a period of six weeks from date. 14.Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned IO/SHO. 15.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, JJULY 24, 2025 DU