Sharma, Ms. Divya Ahuja, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocates with v. THE STATE

CRL.M.C. 8064/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8064/2025, CRL.M.A. 33676/2025 UMESH KUMAR CHANDELIYA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Ms. Divya Ahuja, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocates with Petitioners in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with SI Vishvendra Malik, PS-Mandawali. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 14.11.2025 1. This 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. 788/2023 dated 28th November, 2023, registered under Sections 365, 384, 323, 342, 448, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Mandawli Fazal Pur, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The case of the prosecution is based on the complaint of Respondent No. 2, Mohan Singh, who alleges that on 22nd October, 2023, he was forcibly taken by one Sandeep @ Bunty and 3–4 associates from his residence at J-49, Pandav Nagar, to an office in School Block, Shakarpur, 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:05 CRL.M.C. 8064/2025 Page 2 of 5 Delhi where his brother-in-law Kamal Kumar was present. It is alleged that the said persons assaulted him and compelled him to affix his thumb impression on blank papers and to write that he had no right over approximately 50 sq. yards of the back portion of the Ground Floor of the property. The Complainant further alleged that upon his return, he found that his sister Gayatri Devi and her husband Kamal had erected a wall and illegally occupied that portion of the property. Based on his statement, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3. The parties, who are family members and also neighbours, have amicably resolved the disputes and Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the present FIR against the Petitioners. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 9th September, 2025, has been executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. 4. A copy of the MoU on record, is 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 his no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. To this effect, his Affidavit/No Objection Certificate has been duly placed on record. 5. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2, who appears before the Court in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He confirms that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The Petitioners have also joined the proceedings in person and are 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. 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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:05 CRL.M.C. 8064/2025 Page 3 of 5 6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Sections 365 and 384 IPC are non-compoundable, the offences under Sections 323, 342, 448 and 506 IPC are compoundable in certain cases. 7. 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.4 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] 8. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 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 4 (2012) 10 SCC 303 5 (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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:05 CRL.M.C. 8064/2025 Page 4 of 5 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] 9. Although the offences under Sections 365 and 384 IPC cannot be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and they touch 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 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 20/11/2025 at 11:42:05 CRL.M.C. 8064/2025 Page 5 of 5 exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest. 10. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 has categorically expressed his 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. 11. 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. 12. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 788/2023 dated 28th November, 2023, registered under Sections 365, 384, 323, 342, 448, 506 and 34 IPC at P.S. Mandawli Fazal Pur, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 13. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioners. Accordingly, all the Petitioners are directed to deposit INR 5,000/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of four weeks from today. 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 14, 2025nk