Sharma, Mr. Ajay Kumar Gond and Mr. Shubham, Advs. All person. the v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ANR

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

1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 197/2023 dated 13.03.2023, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, for offences under Sections 354/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint given by Respondent No. 2, wherein, she alleged that on the day of holi when Respondent No. 2 had come out of her bathroom after Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8382/2025 having a bath, Petitioner No. 1 came inside her room and touched her chest, whereafter, he locked the door from the outside and ran away from there.

3. It is alleged that when Respondent No. 2 screamed for help her husband came and unlocked the door, thereafter, Respondent No. 2 tried to call the police.

4. It is alleged that Petitioner No. 3 who is the mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2 told Petitioner No. 1 not to worry and that she will support him.

5. It is alleged that thereafter Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 started abusing and making inappropriate gestures to Respondent No. 2.

6. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes by way of Compromise-cum- Settlement Deed dated 10.11.2025, out of their own free will without any pressure, undue influence or coercion.

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

8. The complainant states that all the disputes have since been resolved. She submits that Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are her brothers-in-law and Petitioner No. 3 is her mother-in-law. She submits that certain dispute arose in regard to the property, which led to filing of the present complaint.

9. She submits that the parties are now happily residing together in the same building and the pendency of the present proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8382/2025

10. She states that she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed.

11. Offence under Section 509 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offence under Section 354 of the IPC is non- compoundable.

12. 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 compound 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 matter between the parties have settled Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8382/2025 themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 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) Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8382/2025

13. 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. the ground

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a that a criminal proceeding on 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8382/2025 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. criminal

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there cases which have an may be 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8382/2025 financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” (emphasis supplied)

14. In the present case parties are closely related to each other and are residing in the same building. Respondent No.2 has categorically stated that the parties are now happily residing together in the same building and the pendency of the present proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn and that she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed. 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.

15. 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.

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

17. In view of the above, FIR No. 197/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Martyrs’ Fund, within a period of 6 weeks from date. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8382/2025

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

19. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. NOVEMBER 24, 2025 (cid:145)KDK(cid:146) AMIT MAHAJAN, J Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8382/2025