Delhi High Court – Orders
Harshit Joshi vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 1 May, 2025
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2175/2025
HARSHIT JOSHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr.
Sandeep Sharma & Mr.
Amit Chadha, Sr. Advs.
with Mr. Hunny Singh &
Mr. Ankit Parindey, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
APP for the State
SI Chandani, PS- IP Estate
Mr. Rohit Saroj, Adv. for
R2
Complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 01.05.2025
CRL.M.A. 9816/2025 (for exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2175/2025
3. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
102/2025 dated 01.02.2025 registered at Police Station I.P.
Estate, for offences under Section 64(1)/69/115(2)/351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).
4. The FIR was registered on a complaint made by
Respondent No. 2 alleging that she and the petitioner were in a
consensual relationship. She alleged that the petitioner
established physical relations with her on the pretext to marry
CRL.M.C. 2175/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 26/06/2025 at 11:26:29
her. It is also alleged that while she was still in a relationship
with the petitioner, she got pregnant. Respondent No. 2 further
claimed that the petitioner subsequently refused to marry her.
5. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties
being young professionals, have realised their mistake and have
decided to bury their disputes and subsequently have entered into
a settlement dated 24.03.2025.
6. The statement of the victim was recorded by the learned
Joint Registrar (Judicial) to that effect on 22.04.2025.
7. The victim is present in Court today and, on being asked,
states that she had met the petitioner sometime in the year 2020
and was in a consensual relationship with him.
8. She submits that due to some misunderstanding and
miscommunication and on the advice received at that stage, the
present complaint was given. She states that the relationship
turned sour and the parties have decided to move on in life and
have no grievance against each other.
9. The case is at the initial stages and it appears that the
parties were in a consensual relationship which turned sour and
led to the complaint being lodged and FIR being registered.
10. It appears that the parties have decided to move on in life
and put a quietus to the dispute.
11. Offences under Sections 64(1)/69/351(3) of the BNS are
non-compoundable and Sections 115(2) of BNS is
compoundable.
12. 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 the offences which are non-
compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between
CRL.M.C. 2175/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 26/06/2025 at 11:26:29
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.
13. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. :
(2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Apex Court has 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 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
CRL.M.C. 2175/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 26/06/2025 at 11:26:29
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)
14. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of
Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has 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.
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 CriminalCRL.M.C. 2175/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 26/06/2025 at 11:26:29
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
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.
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
CRL.M.C. 2175/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 26/06/2025 at 11:26:29
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash
the criminal proceeding if in view of the
compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would
cause oppression and prejudice; and
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)
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Kapil Gupta: 2022 SCC
Online SC 1030, while quashing an FIR under Section 376 of the
IPC, had observed as under:
“12. It can thus be seen that this Court has
clearly held that though the Court should be
slow in quashing the proceedings wherein
heinous and serious offences are involved,
the High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there exists
material for incorporation of such an
offence or as to whether there is sufficient
evidence which if proved would lead to
proving the charge for the offence charged
with. The Court has also to take into
consideration as to whether the settlement
between the parties is going to result into
harmony between them which may improve
their mutual relationship.
x-x-x
15. In both the cases, though the charge-
sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to
be framed and as such, the trial has not yet
commenced. It is further to be noted thatCRL.M.C. 2175/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 26/06/2025 at 11:26:29
since Respondent 2 herself is not
supporting the prosecution case, even if the
criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it
will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If
the request of the parties is denied, it will be
amounting to only adding one more criminal
case to the already overburdened criminal
courts.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. It is not in doubt that the offence under Section 64 of the
BNS (erstwhile Section 376 of the IPC) is heinous in nature and
involve mental depravity. Offences of such nature cannot be
quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such
offences, in true sense, cannot be said to be offences in personam
as the same are crimes against the society.
17. It is pertinent to mention that this Court, in cases Mithun
Kori vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others : 2024 SCC OnLine
Del 5383; Sonu @ Sunil vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors :
2024:DHC:3583; Kundan and Another vs. State and Others :
2022 SCC OnLine Del 4809 while exercising power under 528
of the BNSS had quashed the FIRs registered for offences under
Section 376 of the IPC (now Section 64 of the BNS) on the basis
of the compromise entered into between the parties.
18. Keeping in view the facts of the case, and that the
petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have decided to bury their
disputes and the complainant has specifically stated that she was
in a consensual relationship with the petitioner and had given the
complaint on a misunderstanding, this Court feels that no useful
purpose will be served by keeping the dispute alive and
continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of Court. The parties have a long life ahead, thus, a
humanitarian approach is required to be taken in such peculiar
facts. I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to
CRL.M.C. 2175/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 26/06/2025 at 11:26:29
exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Section
528 of BNSS.
19. In view of the above, FIR No. 102/2025 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MAY 1, 2025
“SS”
CRL.M.C. 2175/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 26/06/2025 at 11:26:29