Delhi High Court – Orders
Ravi Prakash & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5044/2025 & CRL.M.A. 21846/2025
RAVI PRAKASH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State.
I.O.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 29.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 120/2020 dated 9th
March, 2020, registered under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Bawana, Delhi and all proceedings
emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the present case arises out of a complaint filed by Shila
Devi (Respondent No. 2), who is the wife of Petitioner No. 1, while
Petitioner No. 2 is her brother-in-law. In her complaint, she alleges that on
28th January, 2020, at around 9:00 PM, she was at home with her son and
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 5044/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 05/08/2025 at 21:26:38
daughter when her husband, Ravi Prakash (Petitioner No. 1), came back
home. Thereafter, she asked him to return the money and jewellery he had
taken for their son’s peelia ceremony. Upon hearing this, Petitioner No. 1
allegedly became enraged and started assaulting her. He is stated to have
used kicks, punches, and slaps, and even threw Respondent No. 2 to the
ground. When their daughter attempted to intervene, he allegedly assaulted
her as well and pushed her to the ground. Upon being warned that
Respondent No. 2 was calling the police, Petitioner No. 1 fled the house.
However, while leaving, he allegedly threatened her and stated that his
brother Rakesh (Petitioner No. 2), is in the police. It is alleged that Petitioner
No. 2 is the one who instigates Petitioner No. 1 to do these actions.
Thereafter, the injured Respondent No. 2 and her daughter were taken to the
hospital, where the police, upon receiving a PCR call, reached as well. The
MLC confirmed physical assault on 28th January, 2020, and recorded the
nature of injury to Respondent No. 2 as ‘grievous’. Consequently, based on
the statement of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, the impugned FIR was
registered.
3. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the matter has
been amicably settled between the parties of their own free will, without any
coercion, pressure, or undue influence. Pursuant to this settlement, a
Memorandum of Understanding4 / Compromise Deed dated 1st April, 2025,
was executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. A copy of the
said MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court.
4. As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has mutually
resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioners and has voluntarily
CRL.M.C. 5044/2025 Page 2 of 5
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 05/08/2025 at 21:26:38
agreed to give her no-objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. The
parties have further agreed to reside together along with their children.
5. In view of the settlement, the Complainant / Respondent No. 2, who
has appeared before the Court in person, has unequivocally stated that she
does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. She has confirmed that her
decision to settle the matter is voluntary and not influenced by any pressure,
threat, or coercion. In this regard, her Affidavit has also been placed on
record.She further states that the parties are now living together peacefully
along with their children. In light of the amicable resolution, the Petitioners
seek quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offence under Section 498A of IPC are non-compoundable, the offences
under Sections 323, 325 and 506 are compoundable, with the permission of
the Court. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528 of 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:
“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 & 2,4
“MoU”
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
CRL.M.C. 5044/2025 Page 3 of 5
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 05/08/2025 at 21:26:38
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]
7. 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 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.
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 5044/2025 Page 4 of 5
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 05/08/2025 at 21:26:38
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. Thus, considering the nature of dispute, the fact that the parties have
amicably entered into a settlement and have chosen to resume their
matrimonial life with one another, this Court is of the opinion that the
present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) as no purpose would be served by
keeping the dispute alive. The continuance of the present proceedings would
only amount to abuse of the process of Court.
9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
120/2020 dated 9th March, 2020, registered under Sections 323, 325, 506
and 498A of IPC at P.S. Bawana, Delhi and all proceedings emanating
therefrom are hereby quashed.
10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
11. It is clarified that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the
minor children.
12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 29, 2025
d.negi
CRL.M.C. 5044/2025 Page 5 of 5
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 05/08/2025 at 21:26:38