Delhi High Court – Orders
Nasir Ahmed vs State Of Nct Of Delhi, State & Ors on 2 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3667/2025
NASIR AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Fahad Khan, Ms. Saduja,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
State with SI Vivek, PS Neb Sarai
Mr. Sahim Khan, Advocate for R-2 &
3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 02.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 62/2020 under Sections 354,
354B, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S.
Neb Sarai and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is that a complaint was
lodged by Respondent No. 3, who is employed as a driver and used to drive
the vehicle of one Danish. The Complainant alleged that the Petitioner had
been exerting pressure on him for several months to drive his vehicle. Upon
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 3667/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:43
the Complainant’s refusal, the Petitioner allegedly began to threaten him. On
20th August, 2019, at around 8 pm, the Petitioner, along with four other
persons, allegedly arrived at the Complainant’s residence in his absence and
misbehaved with his wife (Respondent No. 2), insisting that she call the
Complainant home. It is further alleged that the Petitioner physically
assaulted Respondent No. 2 by pulling her and hitting her on the chest,
resulting in the tearing of her jumper. He then pushed her to the ground and
struck her on the stomach with a stick. Subsequently, when the Complainant
confronted the Petitioner regarding the incident, the latter abused and
assaulted him. The neighbours, having witnessed this commotion, informed
the Police. The Complainant’s statement was thereafter recorded, based on
which the subject FIR was registered under Sections 354, 323, 506, and 34
of the IPC. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed, wherein the Petitioner was
charge-sheeted under Sections 354, 354B, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
3. The parties state that they are natives of the same village and are also
neighbours. They submit that with the intervention of common friends,
colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 have amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioner and have
decided not to pursue the present FIR against him. A Memorandum of
Understanding4 dated 05th May, 2025, has also been executed between the
Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 recording the terms of settlement.
4. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the
Court. As per its terms, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 confirm resolution of all
disputes and differences with the Petitioner and have agreed to voluntarily
give him no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR.
CRL.M.C. 3667/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:43
5. Statement of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was recorded before the Joint
Registrar on 23rd May, 2025, wherein they confirmed that they have
voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion, settled all their issues and
disputes with the Petitioner.
6. The Complainant is identified by his counsel, unequivocally states
that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He clarifies that the
allegations pertaining to Sections 354 and 354B of the IPC were levelled
against the Petitioner, on account of certain misunderstanding between the
parties and on the basis of legal advice received by the Petitioner. He states
that he has settled the matter out of his own free will, and has no objection if
the FIR is quashed. The Petitioner has also joined the proceedings in person
and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable
resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the subject
FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 354 and 354B of IPC are non-compoundable,
Sections 323 and 506 of IPC are compoundable by the person to whom the
hurt is caused and the person so intimidated respectively. It is well settled
that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (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.5 has held as
follows:
4
“MoU”
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
CRL.M.C. 3667/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:43
“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.,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
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
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 3667/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:43
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 354B 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
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.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present case have categorically expressed
their unwillingness to pursue the matter further and have 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.
CRL.M.C. 3667/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:43
9. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been
put to motion, the ends of justice would be served if the Petitioners are put
to cost.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
62/2020, registered at P.S. Neb Sarai and all proceedings emanating
therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of a cost of INR 5,000/-
by the Petitioner, to be paid 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
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 2, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 3667/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:43