Mr. Sunil Kumar Mr. Salman Khan, Advs v. STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR

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

1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 31/2021 dated 28.02.2021, registered at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao, for offences under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Chargesheet has been filed in the present case.

2. Briefly stated, Respondent No.2 earns his livelihood by selling vegetables on a handcart, which he used to place outside his father’s barber shop. It is alleged that on 28.02.2021, Respondent No.2 went to his father’s barber shop to discuss Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:10.12.2025 13:09:28 CRL.M.C. 8363/2025 regarding placing his handcart outside his shop again but his father was not present at the said shop. It is alleged that Petitioner No.1, who is the elder brother of Respondent No.2, was present at the spot and when Respondent No.2 discussed with him regarding placing his cart outside their father’s barbershop, he got agitated and started abusing and beating Respondent No.2. It is alleged that thereafter Petitioner No.2, who is the younger brother of Respondent No.2, came out of the said shop and stabbed Respondent No.2 with scissors while Petitioner No.1 held Respondent No.2. This incident led to registration of the present FIR.

3. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes before Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi by way of Settlement dated

13.01.2025, out of their own free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. In terms of the said settlement, the entire settlement amount of ₹30,000/- already stands paid to Respondent No. 2.

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

5. The petitioners apologise for their conduct and undertake to not indulge in any such activities again in the future. The petitioners are bound by the said undertaking.

6. The complainant, on being asked, states that he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR. He submits that he has since forgiven the petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 is the real brother of the complainant/ Respondent No. 2 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:10.12.2025 13:09:28 CRL.M.C. 8363/2025 and all the misunderstandings have been resolved. He submits that he has since moved on in life and the pendency of the proceedings will only cause heart burn between the family members. He further states that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed. He submits that he has no remaining grievance against the petitioner.

7. Offence under Section 324 of IPC is non- compoundable.

8. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:10.12.2025 13:09:28 CRL.M.C. 8363/2025 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 offender. the victim and

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 entire resolved themselves. disputes Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:10.12.2025 13:09:28 CRL.M.C. 8363/2025 to whether to examine as

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court 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. 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:10.12.2025 13:09:28 CRL.M.C. 8363/2025 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, 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 punishing persons for serious offences. interest dacoity

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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:10.12.2025 13:09:28 CRL.M.C. 8363/2025 settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between 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 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)

10. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 has stated that he has no remaining grievance against the petitioner. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such circumstances, continuance of the proceedings would only cause harassment and heart burn amongst the parties.

11. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:10.12.2025 13:09:28 CRL.M.C. 8363/2025 the BNSS.

12. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.

13. In view of the above, FIR No. 31/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of four weeks from date.

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

16. The present petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. NOVEMBER 24, 2025 (cid:147)SS(cid:148) AMIT MAHAJAN, J Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:10.12.2025 13:09:28 CRL.M.C. 8363/2025