Delhi High Court · 2025

W.P.(CRL) 3601/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3601/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32472/2025 SHIVAM DIXIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kashish, Ms. Aditi Chopra, Mr. Hunny with Mr. Devenderpal, Advocates with Petitioner (in-Person). Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates for State. ASI Sugam Singh, P.S. Nihal Vihar. Mr. Kunal Choudhary and Mr. Manoj Goswami, Advocates for R-2 with Respondent No. 2 (in-Person). CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 04.11.2025 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. 685/2017 dated 20th October, 2017, registered under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 of the 1 <BNSS= 2 <CrPC= 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 10/11/2025 at 16:30:55 W.P.(CRL) 3601/2025 Page 2 of 6 Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Nihal Vihar, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The case of the prosecution is based on a complaint received from the Complainant, a first-year student of Open School, alleging that on 19th October, 2017, at about 8:30 PM, when she had gone out to purchase household items, the Petitioner, Shivam Dixit, a resident of Nangloi, Delhi, who resides opposite her house, wrongfully restrained her, assaulted her, caught hold of her hand forcibly, misbehaved with her, touched her inappropriately, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to her parents. Based on her statement, the FIR was registered at P.S. Nihal Vihar, Delhi. 3. The impugned FIR was registered prior to the marriage between the parties. Subsequently, the parties got married on 1st November, 2017. However, the marriage did not sustain, and has since been dissolved by mutual consent by a decree of divorce dated 30th July, 2025. 4. The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, have amicably resolved their disputes. Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the impugned FIR against him. In this regard, a Memorandum of Understanding4 dated 6th February, 2025, was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. 5. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give her no 3 <IPC= 4 <MoU= 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 10/11/2025 at 16:30:55 W.P.(CRL) 3601/2025 Page 3 of 6 objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. 6. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2, who appears before the Court in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that she does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR proceedings. She confirms that her decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The Petitioner has also joined the 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 subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. 7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable, the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC are compoundable in certain cases. 8. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 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 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 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 10/11/2025 at 16:30:55 W.P.(CRL) 3601/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 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 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 10/11/2025 at 16:30:55 W.P.(CRL) 3601/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 354 of the 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 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. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 in the present matter has categorically expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has 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. 12. 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 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to secure the ends of justice. 13. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 685/2017 dated 20th October, 2017, registered under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 IPC at P.S. Nihal Vihar, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 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 10/11/2025 at 16:30:55 W.P.(CRL) 3601/2025 Page 6 of 6 14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 15. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 4, 2025 as