Petitioners in person. vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 240/2021 dated 13.04.2021, registered at Police Station Govind Puri, for offences under Sections 323/341/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) including the proceeding emanating therefrom. The Chargesheet has been filed in the present case under Sections 323/341/354/354D/506/509/147/34 of the IPC.

2. It is alleged that, on 12.04.2021, a physical altercation took place between the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 7435/2025 the respondents also got injured. Consequently, the present FIR got registered.

3. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes by way of Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement dated 01.08.2025, on their own free will, without any coercion, undue influence, pressure or threat.

4. The parties are present in person in Court and they have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are closely related to each other and are immediate neighbors. He submits that the petitioners have tendered their unconditional apology for their behavior and further submits that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes with the intervention of family members and respectable members of the society.

6. The parties also undertake not to indulge in any such activities in future and state that they have decided to bury their disputes and live peacefully in future.

7. The petitioners further undertake that they will not harass Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in any manner whatsoever.

8. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on being asked, state that they are satisfied with the apology tendered by the petitioners. They state that they do not wish to pursue any proceeding arising out of the present FIR and have no objection if the same is quashed. The same is duly supported by their affidavit of no-objection.

9. Offences under Sections 323/341/506/509 of the IPC are compoundable in nature and offences under Sections Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 7435/2025 354/354D/147 of the IPC are non-compoundable.

10. 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 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 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 the criminal Court has proceedings even 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. inherent power to quash

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. Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 7435/2025 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 involve heinous and serious prosecutions which 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)

11. 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:

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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 7435/2025 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 7435/2025 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)

12. In the present case, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have stated that they have no remaining grievance against the petitioners, and that they are satisfied with the petitioners’ unconditional apology and they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the FIR. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not wish to pursue the case. In such circumstances, continuance of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heart burn.

13. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 7435/2025 case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

14. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been put to motion and the chargesheet has been filed, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

15. In view of the above, FIR No. 240/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of total cost of ₹50,000/- by the petitioners, out of which ₹25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society and ₹25,000/- to be deposited with Arya Kanya Sadan, 1488 Pataudi House, Daryaganj, New Delhi for the benefit of destitute girls, within a period of three months from date.

16. Proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO.

17. The present petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. NOVEMBER 21, 2025/DU AMIT MAHAJAN, J Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 7435/2025