Ms. Mansi Goyal and Ms. Nisha Thakur, Advocates along with v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ORS

CRL.M.C. 6849/2025 Page 1 of 7 $~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 6849/2025 & CRL.M.A. 28795/2025 DEEPANKAR CHAUHAN ALIAS DIPU & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Naman Gupta, Ms. Mansi Goyal and Ms. Nisha Thakur, Advocates along with petitioners in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Braj Prakash, PS Malviya Nagar. Respondents No.2 and 3 in person. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 25.09.20251.The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 404/2025 dated 12.08.2025, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, for offences under Sections 110/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2.The brief facts are that on 10.08.2025, Respondent No. 3 came to Respondent No. 2’s shop and informed him that while he was talking to his neighbour and friend, one person namely Sonu who resides in the same neighbourhood told his friend that don’t talk to Respondent No. 3 as he had allegedly brought Kavad with some other community. 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 10/10/2025 at 17:03:31 CRL.M.C. 6849/2025 Page 2 of 7 3.It is alleged that while closing his shop, Respondent No. 2 received a phone call from Petitioner No. 1, who asked Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to meet him near the tubewell of the village. 4.It is alleged that on reaching the spot, Petitioner No. 1 asked him as to what had happened with Respondent No. 3 in the morning, to which Respondent No. 2 replied that he must be aware of the same. 5.It is alleged that thereafter, Respondent No. 2 was struck with a stick from the behind. It is alleged that on turning back, Respondent No. 2 saw that the assailant was Petitioner No. 3. 6.It is alleged that thereafter, the other petitioners armed with sticks and rods also came to the spot of the incident. It is alleged that when Respondent No. 3 tried to intervene he was also allegedly hit by Petitioner No. 2 with a stick. 7.It is alleged all the petitioners assaulted Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with sticks and rods and thereafter fled aways from the spot of the incident. 8.The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes with the intervention of well-wishers and family and they have also entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.09.2025, out of their own free will, without any fear or pressure or coercion. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are known to each other and they have amicably resolved the dispute. 10.The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 11.On being asked, Respondent Nos 2 and 3 state that they do 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 10/10/2025 at 17:03:31 CRL.M.C. 6849/2025 Page 3 of 7 not wish to proceed with the proceedings emanating from the present FIR and have no objections if the same are quashed. 12.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are also willing to compensate for the sufferings and also unconditionally apologize for their behaviour. 13.Offence under Section 110 of the BNS is non-compoundable. 14.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 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. 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 10/10/2025 at 17:03:31 CRL.M.C. 6849/2025 Page 4 of 7 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) 15.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 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 10/10/2025 at 17:03:31 CRL.M.C. 6849/2025 Page 5 of 7 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 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 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 10/10/2025 at 17:03:31 CRL.M.C. 6849/2025 Page 6 of 7 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 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) 16.Keeping in view nature of the dispute and the fact 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 considered opinion that it is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction can be exercised and the proceedings are quashed. 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 10/10/2025 at 17:03:31 CRL.M.C. 6849/2025 Page 7 of 7 17.In view of the above, FIR No. 404/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of compensation of ₹50,000/- payable by the petitioners to Respondent Nos 2 and 3 and cost of ₹25,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioners with Delhi Police Martyrs’ Fund within a period of four weeks from the date. 18.Let the proof of payment of compensation and deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO. 19.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, JSEPTEMBER 25, 2025 DU