Mr. Mohit Kapoor Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Advs v. STATE

W.P.(CRL) 2986/2022 Page 1 of 7 $~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(CRL) 2986/2022 CHIRAG CHAUHAN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohit Kapoor & Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Advs. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State along with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advs. Insp. Naveen Kumar, SI Dharmendra Sharma, PS Patel Nagar. Complainant in person. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 07.05.2025 1.The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 576/2022 dated 14.09.2022 registered at police station Patel Nagar for offence under Section 435/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2.The FIR was registered based on a complaint given by Respondent No. 2, alleging that on 14.09.2022, following a dispute which arose between the petitioners and the complainant, the petitioner set the complainant’s car on fire, and the same was captured in CCTV footage. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are residing in the same vicinity and are known to each other. 4.He submits that the petitioners have tendered an unconditional apology for their act to Respondent No.2. He 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 02/07/2025 at 00:39:47 W.P.(CRL) 2986/2022 Page 2 of 7 submits that the parties have decided to bury their disputes and live their lives peacefully in the future. 5.The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes by way of a Compromise Deed dated 28.11.2022, with the intervention of well-wishers and respectable persons of the society, of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or threat. 6.The learned counsel for the parties state that the alleged incident happened because of road rage and there was no intention on the part of either of the parties to commit an offence and harm the other. The parties have settled their dispute, which is also confirmed by the Investigating Officer. 7.Pursuant to the settlement, the petitioners have also compensated the complainant for the losses suffered. A sum of ₹2,00,000/- has already been handed over to the complainant on 14.12.2022 by a Demand Draft bearing No. 028703 dated 13.12.2022 drawn on HDFC Bank, DLH East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. 8.The parties were exempted from personal appearance by order dated 14.12.2022. 9. Respondent No. 2 is present in person and been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 10.On being asked, Respondent No.2 states that he does not want to pursue any proceeding arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same is quashed. He submits that pursuant to settlement, he has already received a sum of ₹2,00,000/- from the petitioners and has no remaining grievance against the petitioners. 11.The learned counsel for the parties state that they have amicably resolved their conflict and wish to live their lives 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 02/07/2025 at 00:39:47 W.P.(CRL) 2986/2022 Page 3 of 7 peacefully in the future. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners undertake to not indulge into any such activities in the future. 12.Offence under Section 435 of the IPC is non-compoundable. 13.It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can quash offences which are non-compoundable under the Code 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 Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. :(2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Apex Court has 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. 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 02/07/2025 at 00:39:47 W.P.(CRL) 2986/2022 Page 4 of 7 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) 14. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr.:(2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Apex Court has 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 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 02/07/2025 at 00:39:47 W.P.(CRL) 2986/2022 Page 5 of 7 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 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 02/07/2025 at 00:39:47 W.P.(CRL) 2986/2022 Page 6 of 7 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) 15.In the present case, Respondent No.2 has stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. He has stated that he has already received the compensation amount and has no remaining grievance against the petitioners and that he is satisfied with the compensation amount. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case. 16.The parties are known to each other and in such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn to Respondent No.2. 17.Keeping in view the nature of 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 of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of 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 02/07/2025 at 00:39:47 W.P.(CRL) 2986/2022 Page 7 of 7 CrPC. 18.However, keeping in mind the fact that charges have already been framed in the case arising out of FIR No. 576/2022, and the State machinery has been put to motion, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost. 19.In view of the above, FIR No.576/2022, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of a total cost of ₹30,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society within a period of twelve weeks from date. 20.The petitioners are directed to provide a copy of the receipt of deposit of cost with the concerned Investigating Officer. 21.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, JMAY 7, 2025 “SK”