Delhi High Court – Orders
Kavita & Ors vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 20 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~71 & 72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 & CRL.M.A. 24173/2025
KAVITA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma, Advocate
with Petitioners (in-Person).
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC (Crl.) for
State.
ASI Malkhush Singh, P.S. Nihal
Vihar.
Respondent No. 2 (in-Person).
+ W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 & CRL.M.A. 24632/2025
MANISH AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma, Advocate
with Petitioners (in-Person).
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC (Crl.) for
State.
SI Pinkhi, P.S. Nihal Vihar.
Respondent No. 2 (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 20.08.2025
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal
W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:34:51
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 W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 – FIR No. 1042/2020 dated 3rd November,
2020 under Sections 323/354B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at
P.S. Nihal Vihar, against Kavita, and Manish on a complaint filed by XX;
and
(ii) In W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 – FIR No. 1041/2020 dated 3rd November,
2020, under Sections 323/324/354B/34 of IPC, registered at P.S. Nihal
Vihar against Manish Aggarwal, Monika and Veena on a complaint filed by
YY.
2. Briefly stated, the case of XX in FIR No. 1042/2020 against Kavita
and her brother Manish is that on 2nd November, 2020, at about 2:00 PM, a
quarrel took place at House No. B-23, Gali No. 10, Chander Vihar, Delhi.
Kavita, who is married to the XX’s elder son Manoj, called her brother
(Manish) and sister-in-law (Yogita) to the spot during the altercation. In the
course of the incident, Kavita physically assaulted XX, while her brother
Manish tore the XX’s clothes. On the basis of her complaint and supporting
circumstances, the present FIR was registered under Sections 323/354B of
IPC. During investigation, it emerged that Yogita, along with Manish and
Kavita, had jointly assaulted XX. It was further revealed that Manish had
earlier threatened XX with dire consequences, including death, if Kavita was
not settled in the Paschim Vihar house. In view of these findings,
chargesheet was filed against Kavita, Manish, and Yogita under Sections
1
“CrPC”
2
“BNSS”
W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:34:51
323/354B/506/34 of IPC.
3. On the other hand, the complainant YY in FIR No. 1041/2020 states
that following frequent quarrels with her husband (Manoj) and in-laws over
household disputes and residence issues, she had to be hospitalized due to
consumption of sleeping pills. On 2nd November, 2020, at about 2:00 PM,
while she was resting at her matrimonial home at Chander Vihar after
discharge from hospital, her husband Manoj, mother-in-law (Veena), and
brother-in-law (Manish Aggarwal) entered the house. It is alleged that
Manish struck YY on the head with a sharp object and tore her clothes,
while her Veena attempted to hurt herself in order to falsely implicate YY.
During the incident, the door lock was also broken, and in the scuffle, YY
sustained injuries. She was thereafter taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by
police, where her MLC was prepared recording simple injuries. YY further
alleged that Manish Aggarwal, Monika Kapoor Aggarwal (sister-in-law),
and Veena, along with her husband, were continuously harassing her and
attempting to dispossess her from the Paschim Vihar residence. Based on
these allegations and supporting medical evidence, FIR No. 1041/2020 was
registered under Sections 323/324/354B/34 IPC. Consequently, chargesheet
was filed against Manish Aggarwal under Sections 323/324/354B/34 while
the names of Manika Kapoor Aggarwal and Veena were placed in Column
No. 12.
4. All of the Petitioners submit that during the pendency of the
proceedings arising from the two FIRs, the parties have amicably settled
their disputes. In this regard, both sets of Petitioners submit that they have
3
“IPC”
W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:34:51
executed two Memorandum of Understandings4 both dated 8th July, 2025:
the first MoU was executed between Manish, Yogita and Kavita (First
Party) and XX (Second Party). The second MoU, was executed between
Manish Aggarwal, Veena, and Monika Kapoor Aggarwal (First party) and
YY (Second Party).
5. As per the terms of the said MoUs, both the Complainants seek
quashing of the proceedings arising out of the respective cross FIRs. Copies
of the MoUs have been placed on record, and have been duly perused by the
Court. In view of this settlement, the Complainants in the two FIRs, who
appear before the Court and duly identified by the concerned IO, have
expressed their unequivocal intent not to 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 voluntarily.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 324/354(B) of IPC are non-compoundable, the
offences under Sections 323/506 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 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.
7. 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
4
“MoU”
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:34:51
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.”
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 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]
9. Although the offences under Sections 324/354(B) of IPC cannot be
treated as strictly in personam, and they touch upon public concerns rather
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:34:51
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 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. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the
impugned cross FIRs, it is appropriate to impose costs. Accordingly, all the
parties are directed to deposit INR 2,500/- each with the Delhi Police
Welfare Fund.
11. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are allowed and FIR
No. 1042/2020 under Sections 323/354B/506/34 of IPC registered at P.S.
Nihal Vihar, and FIR No. 1041/2020 dated 3rd November, 2020, under
Section 323/324/354B/34 of IPC are quashed. Accordingly, all proceedings
emanating from the above two FIRs are also quashed.
W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:34:51
12. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.
13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
14. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 20, 2025
as
W.P.(CRL) 2559/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 2588/2025 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 26/08/2025 at 21:34:51