Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate with v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

CRL.M.C. 6534/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6534/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27519/2025 SH BRAJESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate with Petitioner (in-Person). versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State. SI Ved Prakash, P.S. Jaitpur. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for R-2 to 5 with parties in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 15.09.2025 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. 500/20153 under Sections 323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Jaitpur, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution against the Petitioner is that on 16th November, 2014, the Complainant (now deceased) had objected to the Petitioner washing his car in front of their house, following which an altercation took place wherein the Petitioner abused and physically assaulted 1 <BNSS= 2 <CrPC= 3 <impugned FIR= 4 <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 27/09/2025 at 11:38:30 CRL.M.C. 6534/2025 Page 2 of 5 the Complainant and her sons. It is further alleged that on the next day, the Petitioner, along with his associates, entered her house, assaulted her family members, tore her clothes, and issued threats. On these allegations, an FIR was registered under Sections 323/506/509/34 of IPC. Consequently, chargesheet was filed whereby the Petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 323/354B/506/509 of IPC. 3. A cross FIR bearing No. 851/2014 at P.S. Jaitpur, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of IPC was also lodged arising from the same set of facts and circumstances, however, the offences in the said FIR were compounded by the JMFC-11/South East/Saket vide order dated 2nd June, 2025 at the request of both the parties. 4. Likewise, in the present matter, the parties state that they have amicably settled the dispute relating to the impugned FIR and, and have further executed a Settlement Deed dated 21st August, 2025. 5. A copy of the Settlement Deed has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondents No. 2 to 5 have mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and have agreed to voluntarily give their no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. 6. In view of the settlement, Respondents No. 2 to 5, have appeared before the Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer. They state that although the impugned FIR was registered at the instance of the Complainant (name concealed), who has since deceased, Respondent Nos. 2-5, being the remaining victims, have settled the dispute with the Petitioner, and have decided not to pursue the impugned FIR proceedings. They have confirmed that their decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The Petitioner has also joined 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 27/09/2025 at 11:38:30 CRL.M.C. 6534/2025 Page 3 of 5 proceedings in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. 7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 354B of IPC is non-compoundable, offences under Sections 323/506/509 of IPC are compoundable in certain cases. 8. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC (now 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 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] 9. 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 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 27/09/2025 at 11:38:30 CRL.M.C. 6534/2025 Page 4 of 5 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] 10. Although the offence under Section 354B 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 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 27/09/2025 at 11:38:30 CRL.M.C. 6534/2025 Page 5 of 5 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. 11. Respondents No. 2 to 5, the victims in the present case, have categorically expressed their unwillingness to pursue the matter further and have 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. 12. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 500/2015, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2025/as