[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Kiran Kaur & Anr vs State & Anr on 21 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5682/2019 & CRL.M.A. 39828/2019
KIRAN KAUR & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Hemlata Rawat, Mr. Abhay
Singh, Advocates along with
Petitioners No. 1 & 2 in person
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with SI Shubham, PS Maurya
Enclave
Ms. Damanjit Kaur, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 21.05.2025
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 seeks quashing of FIR No. 423/2010 registered under
Sections 420/174A/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 at P.S.
Maurya Enclave and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The case of the Complainant, which resulted in the registration of the
FIR, stems from a property-related dispute, the specifics of which have been
captured in detail, in the previous order. The Petitioners have now
approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR based on a settlement
arrived at with the Complainant/ Respondent.
1
“Cr.P.C.”
2
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 5682/2019 Page 1 of 6
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 30/06/2025 at 16:14:01
3. Pertinently, pursuant to the settlement, the Petitioners and the
Complainant executed a settlement agreement dated 9 th September 2016,
following which they approached this Court in Crl. M.C. 3910/2016.
However, the Petitioners subsequently withdrew the said petition to
compound the offence under Section 420 IPC before the Trial Court. When
the Petitioners approached the Trial Court, they were referred to mediation,
resulting in a further settlement reflected in the mediation report dated 26 th
March, 2019, based on the prior settlement agreement of 9th September,
2016. Despite this, the Trial Court refrained from compounding the
offences, prompting the Petitioners to file the instant petition.
4. Be that as it may, the parties have now amicably resolved their
dispute with Respondent No. 2, as evidence by Settlement Agreement dated
9th September, 2016 as well as the agreement dated 26th March, 2019,
executed before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi.
In terms of the mediation agreement, Respondent No. 2 has consented to the
compounding of the offences and has no objection to the quashing of the
subject FIR.
5. In the foregoing factual background, this Court had passed a detailed
order on 05th May, 2025. However, the proceedings were adjourned to await
the appearance of Respondent No. 3, who has now appeared and been duly
identified by the Investigating Officer. It was been brought to the Court’s
attention that Respondent No. 3 had previously absconded, following which
a charge under Section 174A IPC was added against him through a
supplementary chargesheet.
6. The Complainant (Respondent No. 2) is present through video
conferencing mechanism, and has been duly identified by the IO. He
CRL.M.C. 5682/2019 Page 2 of 6
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 30/06/2025 at 16:14:01
confirms the settlement arrived at between the parties, and states that the
dispute stands amicably resolved. Accordingly, he submits that he has no
objection to the quashing of the FIR, and an affidavit cum No Objection
Certificate to this effect has also been placed on record. Respondent No. 2
further states that he also has no grievance against Respondent No. 3, and
has no objection to the FIR being quashed as against him as well. The
statement of Respondent No. 2 is duly taken on record.
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 174A and 201 of the IPC are non-compoundable,
Section 420 IPC is compoundable by the person so cheated, with the
permission of the Court. It is well-settled that in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 582 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.3 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]
8. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,4
3
(2012) 10 SCC 303
4
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 5682/2019 Page 3 of 6
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 30/06/2025 at 16:14:01
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
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. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where the
complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no
CRL.M.C. 5682/2019 Page 4 of 6
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 30/06/2025 at 16:14:01
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. The Complainant in the present case has
categorically expressed his 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
9. However, it must be noted that Respondent No. 3 was declared a
proclaimed offender, prompting the initiation of proceedings under Section
82 Cr.P.C., which ultimately led to the invocation of the offence under
Section 174A IPC against him. Therefore, keeping in mind the fact that the
State machinery has been put to motion, the ends of justice would be served
if Respondent No. 3 is put to cost.
10. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 423/2010 registered
under Sections 420/174A/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
P.S. Maurya Enclave and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed, subject to payment of a cost of INR 5,000/- by Respondent
No. 3 to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of six weeks from
today. The proof of payment of cost be submitted with the concerned IO.
11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
CRL.M.C. 5682/2019 Page 5 of 6
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 30/06/2025 at 16:14:01
application.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 21, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 5682/2019 Page 6 of 6
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 30/06/2025 at 16:14:01
[ad_2]
Source link