Mr. S.A. Khan Mr. Kaushif Ahmad Khan, with along Advs v. STATE GNCT OF DELHI ANR

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 415/2019 dated 30.12.2019, registered at Police Station Mansarovar Park, for offences under Sections 354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Chargesheet was filed under Section 354(D)/506/509 of the IPC.

2. It is alleged that on 29.12.2019 at about 9:15 pm the accused/petitioner reached complainant/Respondent No. 2 in a drunken state, rang the door Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 bell, abused her and also extended threats to complainant’s brother and her father. He also stalked her and kept calling her and sending her messages from different mobile numbers. Consequently, the present FIR a registered at the behest of the Respondent No. 2.

3. The learned counsel for the parties submits that the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of a long trial and the parties have decided to move on in life.

4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes by way of Compromise Deed dated

18.09.2025, out of their free will without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

5. The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are present in the Court. They have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

6. Petitioner unconditionally apologises for his behaviour and undertakes that neither the complainant nor any of her family members will be contacted or harassed by him, in any manner whatsoever. The Petitioner is bound by the undertaking.

7. Respondent No. 2 states that the parties are neighbours and since the petitioner has unconditionally apologised for his behaviour, she does not have any remaining grievance against him. She, however, requests that the petitioner be bound to the undertaking that he will not contact her or any of her family member in future. She further states that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and she has Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 no objection if the same is quashed.

8. Offences under Sections 506/509 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Section 354D of the IPC is non-compoundable.

9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya 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 the criminal to continue with 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. Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 the parties have 29.2. When settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: reached (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 transactions or arising out of commercial matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. to whether

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as 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. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 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. the ground

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 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. criminal

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be 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. commercial,

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise mercantile, transactions with an partnership or similar essentially civil in appropriate flavour may situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. financial,

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and the disputants,

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set 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) Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025

11. In the present case, Respondent No.2 has stated that she has since forgiven the petitioner and she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the case will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case.

12. 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 case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

13. However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case arising out of the present FIR and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.

14. In view of the above, FIR No.415/2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹25,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with the Arya Kanya Sadan, 1488 Pataudi House, Daryaganj, New Delhi for the benefit of destitute girls, within a period of six weeks from date.

15. Proof of payment of deposit of cost shall be furnished to the concerned SHO.

16. It is made clear that in case any such complaint is received by the Police in future, an appropriate action without any delay Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 must be taken. The complainant is also at liberty to file an appropriate application for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner, if he is found to be indulging in such activities, in the future.

17. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. NOVEMBER 21, 2025 “SK” AMIT MAHAJAN, J Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 415/2019 dated 30.12.2019, registered at Police Station Mansarovar Park, for offences under Sections 354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Chargesheet was filed under Section 354(D)/506/509 of the IPC.

2. It is alleged that on 29.12.2019 at about 9:15 pm the accused/petitioner reached complainant/Respondent No. 2 in a drunken state, rang the door Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 bell, abused her and also extended threats to complainant’s brother and her father. He also stalked her and kept calling her and sending her messages from different mobile numbers. Consequently, the present FIR a registered at the behest of the Respondent No. 2.

3. The learned counsel for the parties submits that the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of a long trial and the parties have decided to move on in life.

4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes by way of Compromise Deed dated

18.09.2025, out of their free will without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

5. The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are present in the Court. They have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

6. Petitioner unconditionally apologises for his behaviour and undertakes that neither the complainant nor any of her family members will be contacted or harassed by him, in any manner whatsoever. The Petitioner is bound by the undertaking.

7. Respondent No. 2 states that the parties are neighbours and since the petitioner has unconditionally apologised for his behaviour, she does not have any remaining grievance against him. She, however, requests that the petitioner be bound to the undertaking that he will not contact her or any of her family member in future. She further states that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and she has Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 no objection if the same is quashed.

8. Offences under Sections 506/509 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Section 354D of the IPC is non-compoundable.

9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya 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 the criminal to continue with 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. Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 the parties have 29.2. When settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: reached (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 transactions or arising out of commercial matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. to whether

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as 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. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 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. the ground

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 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. criminal

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be 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. commercial,

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise mercantile, transactions with an partnership or similar essentially civil in appropriate flavour may situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. financial,

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and the disputants,

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set 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) Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025

11. In the present case, Respondent No.2 has stated that she has since forgiven the petitioner and she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the case will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case.

12. 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 case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

13. However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case arising out of the present FIR and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.

14. In view of the above, FIR No.415/2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹25,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with the Arya Kanya Sadan, 1488 Pataudi House, Daryaganj, New Delhi for the benefit of destitute girls, within a period of six weeks from date.

15. Proof of payment of deposit of cost shall be furnished to the concerned SHO.

16. It is made clear that in case any such complaint is received by the Police in future, an appropriate action without any delay Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025 must be taken. The complainant is also at liberty to file an appropriate application for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner, if he is found to be indulging in such activities, in the future.

17. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. NOVEMBER 21, 2025 “SK” AMIT MAHAJAN, J Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:25.11.2025 18:38:35 CRL.M.C. 8309/2025