Delhi High Court – Orders
Ashok Bahl & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4687/2025
ASHOK BAHL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rajinder Singh, Mr.
Moinuddin Khan, Ms. Upasana
Nayyar, Mr. Vibhor Tyagi, Ms.
Sheryll Singh, Ms. Pooja Kasana, Ms.
Riya Verma and Mr. Navjyot Birdi,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashneet Singh, APP.
SI Rajender Singh, P.S. Kotla
Mubarakpur.
Mr. Kushal Kumar and Mr. Suryansh
Gaur, Advocates for complainant with
Complainant (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 17.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 363/20153 registered under
Sections 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur and
all proceedings emanating therefrom. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed
qua the Petitioners under Section 304A of IPC.
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“the impugned FIR”
4
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4687/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:27
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. On 23rd March, 2015 DD No. 43-B was recorded at P.S. Kotla
Mubarakpur, upon receipt of information that one Jayashankar had sustained
a head injury due to a heavy object falling on him, and had been admitted to
AIIMS Hospital. The MLC noted: “History of falling heavy object on the
head, history of unconsciousness, history of ENT bleeding.” Based on the
contents of the MLC and the circumstances reported from the site of
incident, the present FIR was registered under Section 338 of IPC.
2.2. During investigation, it was found that the deceased used to work as a
driver in Platoon Securities Private Limited located at F-41, Wills Lifestyle
Showroom, South Ex-1, Delhi-110049. A public witness, Shashi Ranjan, in
his statement recorded during investigation, stated that a customer informed
him that someone was lying in the gallery of the building. On checking, he
discovered that it was Jayashankar. He further stated that there were stone
pieces lying around Jayashankar’s head, and upon examining the wall of the
adjacent property, F-40, South Extension-I, New Delhi-110049, it appeared
that a stone tile had fallen from that building. Since Jayashankar was
bleeding from his head, Shashi Ranjan immediately rushed him to AIIMS
Hospital.
2.3. Investigation revealed that the accident had occurred due to lack of
maintenance of the said building. Accordingly, the owners of the premises,
including the Petitioners herein, were implicated on the allegation that they
had failed to discharge their duty of care to ensure the safety and upkeep of
the structure. On this basis, a chargesheet was filed against them under
Section 304A of IPC.
3. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the dispute has
CRL.M.C. 4687/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:27
been amicably resolved between the Petitioners and the legal heirs of the
deceased. As part of the settlement, the Petitioners have paid a sum of INR
13,00,000/- to Sunita Devi, the widow of the deceased. An acknowledgment
of receipt of this compensation has been annexed with the petition.
4. During the course of the submissions, Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior
Counsel for Petitioners, on instructions, states that taking into account the
age of the deceased, his wages, and number of dependents, the
compensation, as per the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act,
1923, would amount to INR 17,99,600/-. However, he states that the
Petitioners are voluntarily, on humanitarian grounds, willing to enhance the
compensation and pay a consolidated sum of INR 20,50,000/- to the family
of the deceased in full and final settlement of all their claims and
entitlements.
5. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts and submissions and
has interacted with Sunita Devi, who is present in Court and duly identified
by the Investigating Officer. She confirms the payment of INR 13,00,000/-
and gives her no objection to the quashing of the present FIR, subject to
receipt of further payment of INR 7,50,000/- to this effect.
6. Notably, an offence under Section 304A of IPC is non-compoundable.
It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C (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:
CRL.M.C. 4687/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:27
“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 supplied]
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
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 4687/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:27
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]
8. From the above extracts, it is evident that 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
Complainant in the present case has categorically expressed her
unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has 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.
9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned FIR No. 363/2015 as well as all consequential proceedings arising
CRL.M.C. 4687/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:27
therefrom are hereby quashed subject to payment of additional payment of
INR 7,50,000/-, to be disbursed in the following manner:
a) A sum of INR 2,50,000/- shall be paid to the mother of the deceased
by way of a demand draft;
b) A sum of INR 2,50,000/- shall be paid to the major son of the
deceased by way of a demand draft;
c) A sum of INR 2,50,000/- shall be paid to the minor son of the
deceased, to be secured by way of a fixed deposit in his name.
10. With the above directions, the present petition, along with pending
application(s), is disposed of.
11. List before the Joint Registrar for compliance on 01st August, 2025.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 17, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 4687/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:27