[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Bharat Bhushan@ Bharat Kumar @ Sonu And … vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 10 July, 2025
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2094/2025
BHARAT BHUSHAN@ BHARAT KUMAR @ SONU
AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Meena Jha, Adv.
along with petitioners.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari,
ASC (Crl.) for the State
along with Mr. Alok
Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vivekanand Jha, Adv.
for R-2 along with R-2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 10.07.2025
CRL.M.A. 19531/2025 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 2094/2025
3. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
85/2021 dated 16.03.2021, registered at Police Station Prasad
Nagar, for offences under Sections 308/323/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘), including all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
4. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by
Respondent No. 2. It is alleged that an altercation took place
between the parties over a parking issue, which led to the parties
sustaining injuries. The parties are stated to be neighbours.
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 18/07/2025 at 22:17:15
5. It is stated that the chargesheet has not yet been filed in the
present case as the matter was already settled between the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
altercation between the parties was the result of a petty dispute
and that the parties have since resolved the matter and wish to
live peacefully in the future.
7. He submits that the petitioners have tendered an
unconditional apology for their conduct and undertake to not
indulge in any such activities in the future.
8. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is
amicably settled between the parties by way of Memorandum of
Settlement dated 13.05.2025, with the intervention of respectable
members of the society, family members and well-wishers of the
parties, on their own free will, without any force, fraud, undue
influence, threat, coercion, pressure or ill will.
9. The parties are present before this Court in person and
have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
10. Respondent No. 2, on being pointedly asked, states that he
is satisfied with the apology tendered by the petitioners. He states
that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the
present FIR, and has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.
11. Offence under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable,
whereas offence under Section 308 of the IPC is non-
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 offences which are non-
compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between
the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
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 18/07/2025 at 22:17:15
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
that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the
basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender.
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 18/07/2025 at 22:17:15
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.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in
the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be generally treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,
which if proved, would lead to proving the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would
be open to the High Court to go by the nature of
injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on
the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of
injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the
guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the
former case it can refuse to accept the settlement
and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the
latter case it would be permissible for the High
Court to accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the parties.
At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the
fact that the settlement between the parties is going
to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where
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 18/07/2025 at 22:17:15
the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the matter is
still under investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the
criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of
the reason that at this stage the investigation is still
on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed
but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is
still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably,
but after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material mentioned above. On the
other hand, where the prosecution evidence is
almost complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,
normally the High Court should refrain from
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code,
as in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits and to
come to a conclusion as to whether the offence
under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial court and the matter
is at the appellate stage before the High Court,
mere compromise between the parties would not be
a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal
of the offender who has already been convicted by
the trial court. Here charge is proved under
Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is
no question of sparing a convict found guilty of
such a crime.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. 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
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 18/07/2025 at 22:17:15
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
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.
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 18/07/2025 at 22:17:15
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
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)
14. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 has stated that he
does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present
FIR. He has stated that he has no remaining grievance against the
petitioners. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is
unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when
Respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the case. The parties
are neighbours and, in such circumstances, continuation of the
proceedings would only cause undue harassment.
15. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties
have amicably resolved their disputes, 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.
16. However, keeping in mind the fact that the FIR was
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 18/07/2025 at 22:17:15
registered in the year 2021 and State machinery has been put to
motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put
to cost.
17. In view of the above, FIR No.85/2021 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject
to payment of a total cost of ₹5,000/- by the petitioners, to be
deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period
of four weeks.
18. The proof of payment of cost to be submitted to the
concerned SHO.
19. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 10, 2025
“SK”
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 18/07/2025 at 22:17:15
[ad_2]
Source link