Mr. Samir Jha, Ms. Sheetu Bhat and Mr. M.A. Hashmi, Advocates v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ANR

CRL.M.C. 8827/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8827/2025, CRL.M.A. 36855/2025 HEM LATA SAINI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Samir Jha, Ms. Sheetu Bhat and Mr. M.A. Hashmi, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State with SI Suraj, PS-Hauz Khas. Mr. Vikas Bhadauria, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 10.12.2025 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. 271/2021, registered at P.S. Hauz Khas, for the offences under Sections 354/452/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The case of the prosecution emanates from a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, alleging that she was subjected to physical assault at the instance of the Petitioners. It is stated that on 15th August, 2021, Petitioner 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 15/12/2025 at 11:33:39 CRL.M.C. 8827/2025 Page 2 of 6 No. 1 went to the complainant’s residence and assaulted her with sticks, whereafter his wife, Petitioner No. 2, also arrived and abused her, inflicted further physical assault, and damaged household articles. The complaint asserts that both Petitioners assaulted her with sticks and blows. Based on this statement, the subject FIR came to be registered, and upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for the aforenoted offences. 3. The parties, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, have amicably resolved their dispute and differences. Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the present FIR against the Petitioners. In furtherance of this settlement, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 10th November, 2025 has been executed between the parties, a copy whereof is placed on record and has been perused by this Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioners and has agreed to voluntarily give her no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. 4. The Complainant, who appears in person and is 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. She further explains that the FIR was lodged due to a misunderstanding, in a fit of anger. She submits that the Petitioners are her family members and, with a view to restoring peace and harmony within the family, she does not wish to continue with the criminal proceedings. She states that the Petitioners have already apologised to her and clarified their position, and she has accepted the apology. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the 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 15/12/2025 at 11:33:39 CRL.M.C. 8827/2025 Page 3 of 6 Petitioners seek quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Sections 354 and 452 of IPC are non-compoundable, Sections 323 and 506 of IPC are compoundable in certain cases, with the permission of the Court. 6. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now 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 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 15/12/2025 at 11:33:39 CRL.M.C. 8827/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 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 452 of the IPC cannot be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and 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 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 15/12/2025 at 11:33:39 CRL.M.C. 8827/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest. 9. The Complainant in the present case 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. 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. 10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 271/2021, P.S. Hauz Khas, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 11. 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. 12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 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 15/12/2025 at 11:33:39 CRL.M.C. 8827/2025 Page 6 of 6 13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 10, 2025 nk