Delhi High Court – Orders
Sunder Singh & Ors vs State Through Sho Concerned & Anr on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~57, 58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 3767/2023
SUNDER SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO CONCERNED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC for State with
Ms. Madhuri, SI, PS-Pul Prahladpur.
+ W.P.(CRL) 202/2024
SH. DINESH AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Mr. Varun Sharma
and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Ms. Madhuri, SI, PS-Pul Prahladpur.
Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Mr. Varun Sharma
and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 05.08.2025
1. The present petitions filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 19731 (now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
1
“CrPC”
W.P.(CRL) 3767/2023 & W.P.(CRL) 202/2024 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 07/08/2025 at 22:06:40
20232), seeking quashing of cross FIRs, the details of which are as follows:
(i) In W.P.(CRL) 3767/2023 – FIR No. 149/2023 dated 17th May, 2023
registered under Sections 323/324/341/354(B)/354/509/506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Pul Prahladpur, Delhi. The said FIR was lodged
against Sunder Singh, Mona, Priyanka and Neha; and
(ii) In W.P.(CRL) 202/2024 – FIR No. 148/2023 dated 17th May, 2023,
registered under Sections 323/341/354/509/506/34 of IPC and Section 8 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012,4 at P.S. Pul
Prahladpur, Delhi. The said FIR was against Dinesh, Nisha Devi, Jagwati
Devi and Rupali.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant in FIR No. 149/2023
against Sunder Singh and other co-accused persons is that on the morning of
17th May, 2023, at around 8:00 AM, the Complainant was at home when
Sunder Singh (tenant) started abusing her over water supply issues. Upon
questioning the abusive language, Sunder Singh’s wife Mona, along with
her sisters Priyanka and Neha, joined in and physically assaulted the
Complainant by grabbing her hair, throwing her to the ground, and beating
her. During the scuffle, Sunder Singh intentionally struck the Complainant
on her chest and tore her T-shirt. The Complainant’s parents came to
intervene but were also beaten by the aforementioned accused persons.
Priyanka additionally bit the Complainant’s arm. As the Complainant and
her family tried to retreat, the accused again attacked and threatened them
with serious harm if they reported the incident. Police and emergency
services were called, and the Complainant and her mother were taken to the
2
“BNSS”
3
“IPC”
W.P.(CRL) 3767/2023 & W.P.(CRL) 202/2024 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 07/08/2025 at 22:06:40
AIIMS Trauma Centre for medical treatment.
3. On the other hand, the Complainant in FIR No. 148/2023, complained
that on the evening of 16th May, 2023, the Complainant and her mother were
informed that Mona, the Complainant’s sister, and her husband were being
assaulted by Dinesh (landlord) and his family (Nisha Devi, Jagwati Devi and
Rupali). Concerned, the Complainant, her mother and sister Priyanka rushed
back but found the situation calmed. The next morning, due to water supply
issues, Mona and her husband approached Dinesh to complain. Dinesh
refused water supply and allegedly pushed Mona when she requested a rent
refund. The Complainant, watching from upstairs, came down to intervene
but was abused verbally by Dinesh. During the altercation, Dinesh allegedly
pressed the Complainant’s breast from behind and continued to abuse her,
while Dinesh’s wife physically assaulted the Complainant.
4. Nonetheless, the parties in the two FIRs have amicably settled their
disputes. In this regard, both sets of Petitioners submit that they have
executed two Memorandum of Understandings5 dated 7th June, 2023 and
27th June, 2023. As per the terms of the said MoUs, the Complainants in
both the matters have voluntarily agreed to settle the matter and seek
quashing of the proceedings arising out of the respective cross FIRs.
5. The Complainants in the impugned FIRs, who are present in person
and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, have unequivocally stated
that they do not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings any further. They have
affirmed to the Court that their decision to settle the matter is voluntary and
free from any coercion or undue influence.
4
“POCSO”
5
“MoU”
W.P.(CRL) 3767/2023 & W.P.(CRL) 202/2024 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 07/08/2025 at 22:06:40
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 324/354/354(B) of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO
Act, are non-compoundable, Sections 323/341/509/506 of IPC are
compoundable in certain cases.
7. 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.
8. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.6 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.”
9. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,7 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 and6
(2012) 10 SCC 303
7
(2014) 6 SCC 466W.P.(CRL) 3767/2023 & W.P.(CRL) 202/2024 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 07/08/2025 at 22:06:40
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.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. Although the offences under Sections 324/354/354(B) of IPC and
Section 8 of POCSO Act cannot be treated as strictly in personam, and they
touch upon public concerns rather than being confined to individual
grievances, the Court must also take into account 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
W.P.(CRL) 3767/2023 & W.P.(CRL) 202/2024 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 07/08/2025 at 22:06:40
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.
11. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are allowed and the
impugned FIR No. 149/2023 and FIR No. 148/2023 and all proceedings
emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
12. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.
13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any,
are disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 5, 2025
nk
W.P.(CRL) 3767/2023 & W.P.(CRL) 202/2024 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 07/08/2025 at 22:06:40