Delhi High Court · 2025

CRL.M.C. 8785/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8785/2025 SAKSHAM SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Girish Kumar, Mr. Aayush Gautam, Mr. Udayan Khurana and Mr. Kartikey Kaushik, Advocates for P-1 with Petitioners No. 1 (in-Person). Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner No. 2 with P-2 (in-Person). versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State. SI Sushil Kr and ASI Sunita, P.S. Kapashera. Mr. Mukul Malik, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 (in-Person). CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 09.12.2025 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. 0215/2023 dated 25th May, 2023, registered under Sections 323/341/354/354(D)/506/34 of the Indian 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 12/12/2025 at 12:33:15 CRL.M.C. 8785/2025 Page 2 of 6 Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Kapashera, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The prosecution case arises from a complaint made by Respondent No. 2, a student, alleging persistent eve-teasing, stalking, harassment, and criminal intimidation by Petitioner No. 1. She stated that he had been misbehaving with her since February, approaching her outside classrooms, following her on campus and near her home, calling her from unknown numbers, and issuing threats. On 24th May, 2023, while she was travelling home with friends, Petitioner No. 1, who was in a car along with Petitioner No. 2, intercepted her vehicle. Petitioner No. 1 allegedly held her arm, slapped her, and threatened her with dire consequences. Based on the complaint, the FIR was registered. 3. The parties state that they have amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Deed dated 20th November, 2025. The copy on record is perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to voluntarily give her no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 4. Respondent No. 2, who appears in person, duly identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that she does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. She confirms that her decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The Petitioners are also present and duly identified by the Investigating Officer. They have tendered an apology to Respondent No. 2, which she has accepted the same. In view of the amicable settlement, the parties jointly seek quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. 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 12/12/2025 at 12:33:15 CRL.M.C. 8785/2025 Page 3 of 6 5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Sections 354 and 354D IPC are non-compoundable, the offences under Sections 323, 341, and 506 IPC are compoundable in certain cases. 6. 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] 7. 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: 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 12/12/2025 at 12:33:15 CRL.M.C. 8785/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 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] 8. Although the offences under Sections 354 and 354A 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 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 12/12/2025 at 12:33:15 CRL.M.C. 8785/2025 Page 5 of 6 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. 9. Respondent No. 2 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. 10. 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. 11. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 0215/2023 dated 25th May, 2023, registered under Sections 323/341/354/354(D)/506/34 IPC at P.S. Kapashera, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 12. Having regard to the nature of the Petitioners’ conduct, this Court is of the view that they must undertake community service as a measure of accountability. Accordingly, the Petitioners are directed to perform community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital for a period of one month, i.e., from 15th December, 2025 to 15th January, 2025. The Petitioners shall report to the Medical Superintendent of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital on 15th December, 2025 for instructions and assignment of duties. Upon completion of the said period, a certificate confirming the completion of community service shall be issued by the Medical Superintendent and the same shall be filed with the Registry. In the 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 12/12/2025 at 12:33:15 CRL.M.C. 8785/2025 Page 6 of 6 event of any absenteeism, default, or misconduct on the part of the Petitioners during the course of the community service, the same shall be immediately reported by the Medical Superintendent to the concerned SHO, who shall, in turn, inform the APP for placing the matter before this Court and seeking appropriate orders, including revival of the FIR. 13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 9, 2025 as