Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate along with the v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

W.P.(CRL) 4278/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 4278/2025, CRL.M.A. 38506/2025 KUNDAN SINGH & ORS ......Petitioners Through: Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate along with the Petitioners in person. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ......Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State along with SI Jitender Kumar, PS Nangloi. Mr. Saurabh Pandey and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Awana, Advocates for the Respondent No. 2 along with Respondent No. 2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 23.12.2025 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. 0009/2021 dated 06th January, 20213 registered under Sections 354/323/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Nangloi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The prosecution case is that on 4th January, 2021 at about 7:00 PM, a 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “impugned FIR” 4 “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 27/12/2025 at 13:00:07 W.P.(CRL) 4278/2025 Page 2 of 5 quarrel took place between the complainants, E (Respondent No. 2) and N (now deceased), and the Petitioners, who are neighbours residing in the same locality at Camp No. 2, Nangloi, Delhi. It is alleged that during the said altercation, abuses were exchanged and the complainants were subjected to a physical scuffle. A written complaint was submitted, pursuant to which the impugned FIR was registered. 3. The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, they have amicably resolved their disputes. Pursuant thereto, a Compromise Deed dated 26th September, 2025 has been executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. 4. Respondent No. 2, appearing in person and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Her affidavit to this effect has also been placed on record. 5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 354 of IPC is non-compoundable, Sections 323 and 509 of IPC are compoundable in certain cases. 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 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 27/12/2025 at 13:00:07 W.P.(CRL) 4278/2025 Page 3 of 5 & Anr.5 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.,6 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: 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 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303 6 (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 27/12/2025 at 13:00:07 W.P.(CRL) 4278/2025 Page 4 of 5 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 offence under Section 354 of the IPC cannot be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and it touches 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 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 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 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 27/12/2025 at 13:00:07 W.P.(CRL) 4278/2025 Page 5 of 5 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 the impugned FIR No. 0009/2021 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 3,000/- 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. 13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 23, 2025/MK