Delhi High Court – Orders
Ravi Barnwal & Anr vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4388/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19085/2025
RAVI BARNWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Deepshikha Dwivedi, Advocate
with Petitioners (in-Persons).
Mr. Babar Ali Khan, Advocate for
Mohd. Umar.
versus
THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
SI Jitender Kr., P.S. Nangloi.
Mr. S.R. Yadav, Advocate for
Complainant with (Complainant in-
Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 14.08.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 344/2016 registered at P.S.
Nangloi under Sections 287/304A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and
all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly, the case of Prosecution against the Petitioners emanates from
a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, who is engaged in the work of tying
sariya (iron rods) for construction purposes. On the day of the incident,
Respondent No. 2, along with his colleague Amar Singh was called by
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
CRL.M.C. 4388/2025 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 21/08/2025 at 21:37:12
Petitioner No. 1, a contractor of sanitary and timber works, to carry out
sariya tying work. The Complainant, along with Amar Singh, arrived at the
site; while Amar Singh operated an electric glander machine to cut the rods,
the Complainant was straightening and handing over the rods. The
Complainant alleged that both he as well as Amar Singh informed Petitioner
No. 1, the contractor, and Petitioner No. 2, the owner of the house, about an
electric current being present in the machine and requested that it be
checked by an electrician. However, the Petitioners allegedly ignored the
warning, dismissing it as a common occurrence during the rainy season.
However, while Amar Singh was cutting sariya, he suffered a severe electric
shock, and was rushed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangolpuri, where the
doctor declared him dead. Pursuant to the Complainant’s statement, the
subject FIR came to be registered. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed,
wherein the Petitioners have been charge-sheeted under Sections
287/304A/34 of the IPC.
3. The parties state that, with intervention of common friends,
colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 (the Complainant and the deceased’s wife, respectively) have
amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioners and have decided not to
pursue the present FIR against them. Pursuant to this settlement, a
Memorandum of Understanding4 dated 29th July, 20224 has been executed
between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2.
4. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the
Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 3 has mutually resolved all disputes
3
“IPC”
4
“MoU”
CRL.M.C. 4388/2025 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 21/08/2025 at 21:37:12
and differences with the Petitioners and has agreed to voluntarily give her no
objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. In furtherance of the
settlement, the Petitioners agreed to pay a total sum of INR 4,40,000/- to
Respondent No. 3 as final settlement amount.
5. During the course of the proceedings, Respondent No. 3, wife of the
deceased, informed this Court that the deceased is also survived by two
sons, one a minor and the other a major. In view thereof, the Petitioners have
impleaded them as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and an amended memo of
parties has also been placed on record. The Petitioners also expressed their
willingness to enhance the settlement amount by an additional sum of INR
1,00,000/- to be allocated in the names of the sons: INR 75,000/- in favour
of Respondent No. 4 (minor son) and INR 25,000/- in favour Respondent
No. 5 (major son).
6. Respondent No. 3, who appears before the Court in person, and is
identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that she does not
wish to pursue the present proceedings. She confirms that her decision to
settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or
coercion. She further states that in terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
parties have already received a sum of INR 3,65,000/-. Additionally, in
accordance with the Agreement, the Petitioners have tendered the balance
amounts of INR 1,25,000/-, INR 37,500/- and INR 12,500/- in favour of
Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 respectively by
way of demand drafts, handed over to Respondent No. 3. The same have
been duly received and acknowledged by Respondent No. 3. In light of the
amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the
subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
CRL.M.C. 4388/2025 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 21/08/2025 at 21:37:12
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 287 and 304A of the IPC are non-compoundable, it
is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
CrPC (now Section 528 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,
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]
8. 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 the5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 4388/2025 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 21/08/2025 at 21:37:12
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.
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]
9. Although the offences under Sections 287 and 304A of the IPC
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
CRL.M.C. 4388/2025 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 21/08/2025 at 21:37:12
the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no
worthwhile public interest. The Complainant and the deceased’s wife 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.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No.
344/2016, registered at P.S. Nangloi, as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 14, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 4388/2025 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 21/08/2025 at 21:37:12