Delhi High Court – Orders
Sanjay @ Sanjeev & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 8 July, 2025
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 556/2025
SANJAY @ SANJEEV & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Relay,
Mr. Sushant Dahiya and
Ms. Smritee Relan, Advs.
All the petitioners in
person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
APP for the State with SI
Ajay Kumar, PS Narela.
Ms. Sumita Mann, Adv.
for R-2 (through VC)
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 08.07.2025
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
90/2012 dated 20.02.2012, registered at Police Station Narela, for
offences punishable under Sections 452/323/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘), including all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom. The present FIR was registered on
a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.
2. It is averred that the parties are neighbours. It is alleged
that the petitioners had forcibly entered the house of Respondent
No.2 on multiple occasions and beaten her. It is also alleged that
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had asked Respondent No.2 to vacate her
house on one occasion, and the petitioners had also tried to
pressurise Respondent No.2 to sign some documents during one
CRL.M.C. 556/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 11/07/2025 at 22:12:48
such incident.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
parties are neighbours and the altercations between the parties
were a result of some misunderstanding, which has since been
resolved. He submits that the parties have since settled the
dispute and they wish to live harmoniously in the future.
4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is
amicably settled between the parties by way of Memorandum of
Understanding dated 26.10.2024, without any force, coercion,
undue influence and pressure.
5. On 27.05.2025, Respondent No. 2 and the petitioners
appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and gave
voluntary statements that dispute has been amicably settled as per
the settlement deed dated 26.10.2024. Respondent No.2 further
stated that she did not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out
of the FIR.
6. The parties are present in person and they have been duly
identified by the Investigating Officer.
7. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 reaffirms that she does
not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR
and has no objection if the same are quashed.
8. Offence under Sections 323 of the IPC is compoundable
whereas offence under Section 452 of the IPC is non-
compoundable.
9. 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 offences which are non-
compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between
CRL.M.C. 556/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 11/07/2025 at 22:12:48
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. In the case
of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6
SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had 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 the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in
CRL.M.C. 556/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 11/07/2025 at 22:12:48
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)
10. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State
of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had 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 Criminal 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
CRL.M.C. 556/2025 Page 4 of 7This 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 11/07/2025 at 22:12:48
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
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
CRL.M.C. 556/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 11/07/2025 at 22:12:48
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)
11. It is stated that the altercations arose due to some
misunderstanding. Respondent No.2/ complainant has stated that
she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the
present FIR, which was registered way back in the year 2012. It
is unlikely that the case will result in conviction in such
circumstances. Moreover, the parties are neighbours and keeping
the dispute alive, especially after the parties have decided to
settle the dispute, would only cause harassment and would lead
ill will to fester.
12. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the
parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels
that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute
alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case
to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
13. However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet
has been filed and the State machinery has been put to motion,
ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.
14. In view of the above, FIR No. 90/2012 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject
CRL.M.C. 556/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 11/07/2025 at 22:12:48
to payment of total cost of ₹20,000/- by the petitioners, out of
₹10,000/- is to be deposited with the Bar Council of Delhi and
₹10,000/- is to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare
Society within a period of eight weeks from date.
15. Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the
concerned SHO.
16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 8, 2025
‘KDK’
CRL.M.C. 556/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 11/07/2025 at 22:12:48