Delhi High Court – Orders
Harish Chander Kaushik vs The State Nct Of Dlehi & Anr on 9 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~88 & 25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1657/2025 & CRL.M.A. 15503/2025
HARISH CHANDER KAUSHIK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Issar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DLEHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for
the State.
SI RP Meena, PS: Palam Village.
Mr. Deepak Rohilla, Advocate for R-
2.
+ W.P.(CRL) 1377/2025 & CRL.M.A. 12887-12888/2025
DEVENDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Rohilla, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
SI RP Meena, PS: Palam Village.
Mr. Deepak Issar, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 09.07.2025
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 19731 (now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
1
“CrPC”
W.P.(CRL) 1657/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 1377/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:26:28
Sanhita, 20232), seeking quashing of two cross complaints under Section
200 of the Cr.P.C. which arise out of the same set of facts, therefore they are
being disposed of by way of a common order. The details of the cross
complaints impugned in the captioned petitions are as follows:
(i) In W.P.(CRL) 1657/2025 – criminal case no. 382/2022 under Sections
420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, filed on a complaint by
Davinder Kaushik against Harish Chander Kaushik, and
(ii) In W.P.(CRL) 1377/2025 – complaint case no. 1627/2021 under
Section 406, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, filed on a complaint by Harish
Chander Kaushik against Davinder Kaushik.
2. Both the Petitioners – Mr. Harish Chander Kaushik and Mr. Davinder
Kaushik are brothers. The dispute giving rise to the present petitions arose
out of the right of the shared ancestral property of their parents. The
Petitioners are 2 of 6 siblings – 3 sisters and 3 brothers. After the demise of
their father, the sisters executed a relinquishment deed dated 6th July, 2000
in favour of the brothers. The elder brother of the Petitioners passed away in
1997 and so his share devolved to his wife and children as per law. In order
to avoid any disputes later on, the Petitioners and the wife of the third
brother entered into a family agreement dated 30th April, 2003, whereupon
the three story building were divided between them. However, the terms of
this agreement are disputed. While Mr. Davinder Kaushik claims that as per
the settlement, he became the absolute owner of the second floor and had
rights to the roof as well as one room/shop at the ground floor of the
property, Mr. Harish Chander Kaushik claims that it was agreed that each
2
“BNSS”
3
“IPC”
W.P.(CRL) 1657/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 1377/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:26:28
floor of the building would be divided equally and each party will enjoy
their respective portion without any rights to the roof.
3. Believing himself to be the owner of the claimed share of the property
– i.e., entire second floor (with roof rights) as well as one room/shop at the
ground floor of the property, Mr. Davinder Kaushik sold his share of the
property to a third party named Kiran Devi, by way of a registered sale deed
dated 23rd October, 2021. However, this gave rise to the present cross
complaints with both the Petitioners claiming that the other has forged the
family agreement dated 30th April, 2003 with malafide intent to exclude the
share of the other. In this regard, Mr. Harish Chander Kaushik also filed a
suit for declaration and injunction against Mr. Davinder Kaushik, which is
currently pending adjudication.
4. In both of the above complaints, cognizance has been taken by the
Judicial Magistrate and summons have been issued to both accused
Petitioners in the respective cross cases. The said proceedings are pending
consideration.
5. The Petitioners were referred to mediation before the Mediation
Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, wherein they voluntarily, peacefully and
amicably settled their disputes. In this regard, they have also executed a
Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement4 dated 029th October, 2024.
6. As per the MoU, both the Petitioners (cross complainants) have
agreed to settle the matter and seek joint quashing of the litigations arising
out of the cross complaints. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record
and is perused by the Court. In view of this settlement, the Complainants
present in Court have expressed their unequivocal intent not to pursue the
W.P.(CRL) 1657/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 1377/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:26:28
complaint proceedings against one another. 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.
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. At the outset,
it is noted that 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 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, where4
“MoU”
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
W.P.(CRL) 1657/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 1377/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:26:28
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. Applying the principles laid down in the above decisions, this Court
notes that while the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 465 of IPC
are non-compoundable, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows
this Court to quash criminal proceedings in cases where an amicable
settlement has been reached.
10. While it is true that offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 465 of
IPC are not offences in personam, meaning they affect society at large and
not just the individual complainant, 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 where the chances of conviction are remote
due to an amicable settlement between the parties, the Court should consider
whether continuing the prosecution would serve any meaningful purpose.
Since the Complainants have entered into a voluntary and genuine
settlement, and are unwilling to pursue the case, the likelihood of conviction
diminishes significantly. Thus, considering the totality of circumstances, the
Court is of the view that allowing the prosecution of the impugned FIRs to
continue would serve no useful purpose. It would not only be a waste of
judicial time but would lead to an unnecessary burden on the State
Exchequer. In light of the settled legal position, the present case is fit for
quashing under Section 528 of BNSS.
W.P.(CRL) 1657/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 1377/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:26:28
11. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the
impugned cross complaints, it is appropriate to impose costs on the
Petitioners. Accordingly, both the Petitioners are directed to deposit INR
2,500/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund.
12. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are allowed and
criminal case no. 382/2022 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and
complaint case no. 1627/2021 under Sections 406, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC
are hereby quashed. Accordingly, all proceedings emanating from the above
two complaints are also quashed.
13. It is expected that the parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.
14. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
15. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 9, 2025
d.negi
W.P.(CRL) 1657/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 1377/2025 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 15/07/2025 at 21:26:28