[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Mukesh Rana And Anr vs State Through Sho Ps Sector 23 Dwarka And … on 17 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~66 & 67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20314/2025
MUKESH RANA AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arjun Rana and Mr. Daksh
Dhankhar, Advocates with
Petitioners.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO PS SECTOR 23 DWARKA AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for R-1.
SI Rakesh Kumar, P.S. Sector 23
Dwarka.
Respondent No. 2 (in-Person).
+ CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20315/2025
MOHIT RANA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Lamba, Advocate with
Petitioners.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO PS DWARKA NORTH AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for R-1.
SI Rakesh Kumar, P.S. Sector 23
Dwarka.
Mr. Arjun Rana and Mr. Daksh
Dhankhar, Advocates for
complainant.
Respondent No. 4 (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:34:09
% 17.07.2025
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 19731 (now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 20232), seeking quashing of cross FIRs, the details of which are as
follows:
(i) In CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 – FIR No. 458/2015 dated 10th November,
2015 under Sections 323/342/354/354B/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Sector 23, Dwarka, at the instance of ‘XYZ’
against Mukesh, Naresh and Sangeeta; and
(ii) In CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 – FIR No. 397/2015 dated 10th October, 2015
under Sections 147/148/149/323/308/354B/34 of IPC, registered at P.S.
Sector 23, Dwarka, at the instance of Bijender, brother of Naresh (now
deceased), against Neelam, Mohit, Deepak and Chotu.
2. Briefly stated, the case of XYZ against Mukesh, Naresh and Sangeeta
is that on 9th November, 2015 at around 10:30 PM, the accused persons
entered XYZ’s house where they allegedly tore her clothes and physically
assaulted her. Consequently, XYZ was taken to DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar
Delhi for medical examination and an FIR was registered under sections
323/354/506 IPC on 10th November, 2015. Subsequently, a chargesheet was
filed against Mukesh, Naresh and Sangeeta under Sections
323/342/354/354B/506/509/34 of IPC.
3. On the other hand, Bijender, brother of co-accused Naresh, in FIR No.
397/2015, filed a complaint against Neelam, Mohit, Deepak and Chotu,
1
“CrPC”
2
“BNSS”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:34:09
stating that on 10th October, 2015 at about 2:30 PM, upon hearing a
commotion outside his residence, he went out and witnessed the
aforementioned accused persons, along with some unidentified individuals,
assaulting his brother Mukesh with baseball bats and lathis. When Bijender
attempted to intervene, Neelam, Mohit, Deepak and Chotu allegedly turned
on him and also assaulted his family members, namely Naresh, Sangeeta,
Chameli Devi, and Divya. Additionally, Bijender claimed that on 9th
October, 2015, his brother Devendra, who was undergoing treatment for
cancer, was physically assaulted by Neelam and Mohit. Based on these
allegations, an FIR was registered on 10th October, 2015 under Sections
147/148/149/308/323 of IPC. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against
Neelam, Mohit, Deepak and Chotu under Sections
147/148/149/323/308/354B/34 of IPC.
4. All of the Petitioners state that they are members of the same family
and, during the pendency of the trial proceedings in the above cases, have
amicably resolved their disputes through the intervention of relatives and
other respected members of the society. In this regard, the Petitioners in both
cases have also executed two separate Memorandum of Understandings4
both dated 18th April, 2025. The first MoU (annexed with CRL.M.C.
4680/2025), seeking quashing of FIR No. 397/2015, has been executed
among the following parties:
i. Mohit; Neelam; Deepak; and Dhirender Singh @ Chotu (accused in
FIR No. FIR No. 397/2015); and
ii. Bijender (Complainant in FIR No. 397/2015); Divya (Bijender’s
daughter); Late Naresh (through Bijender); XYZ (Complainant in FIR No.CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:34:09
458/2015); Mukesh; and Chameli Devi (through her Legal Representative
Bijender).
5. The Second MoU dated 18th April, 2025 (annexed with CRL.M.C.
4679/2025), seeking quashing of FIR No. 458/2015, has been executed
between the following parties:
i. Mukesh; and Sangeeta (accused in FIR No. 458/2015); and
ii. XYZ (Complainant in FIR No. 458/2015).
6. As per the terms of the MoUs, both the Complainants have agreed to
settle the matter and seek joint quashing of the litigations arising out of the
cross FIRs. Copies of the MoUs have been placed on record, and are perused
by the Court.
7. In view of this settlement, the Complainants present in Court have
expressed their unequivocal intent to not pursue the FIR proceedings. They
confirm to the Court that they are not under any undue influence or coercion
and have taken the decision to settle the matter amicably with the assistance
of their family members. ‘XYZ’, the Complainant in FIR No. 458/2015,
present before the Court, states that the FIR was filed in the heat of the
moment in response to the FIR No. 397/2015 filed against her son, Mohit.
She submits that the parties have now settled their differences, and gives her
no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
8. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 147/148/149/308/354/354B of IPC are non-
compoundable, Sections 323/506/509 of IPC are compoundable in certain
cases. 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
4
“MoU”.
CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 Page 4 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 22/07/2025 at 21:34:09
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.
9. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.5 has
clarified that even non-compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis
of a settlement between the parties if the circumstances so warrant. The
relevant portion of the judgment states:
“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.”
10. 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.
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:34:09
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.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. Although the offences under Sections 147/148/149/308/354/354B
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. The Complainants 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.
12. However, considering that the State machinery has been put to
motion, ends of justice would be served if the Petitioners are put to cost.
CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:34:09
13. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are allowed and FIR
No. 397/2015 and FIR No. 458/2015, both registered at P.S. Sector 23
Dwarka are quashed, subject to payment of a cost of INR 5,000/- each by
the Petitioners to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of four
weeks from today. The proof of payment of cost be submitted with the
concerned IO.
14. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.
15. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
16. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 17, 2025/as
CRL.M.C. 4679/2025 & CRL.M.C. 4680/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:34:09
[ad_2]
Source link