Delhi High Court – Orders
Manish Kashyap & Ors vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 28 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2464/2025, CRL.M.A. 11038/2025
MANISH KASHYAP & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chobey, Advocate
with Petitioners in person.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manisha, SI, PS-Mandawali.
Mr. Nitesh and Ms. Kajal Yadav,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 28.05.2025
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. 710/2023 under Sections
285/336/337/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S.
Mandawali Fazalpur and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The
chargesheet stands filed, wherein the Petitioners have been charge-sheeted
for the offences under Sections 285, 336, 338 and 34 of the IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution against the Petitioners is
that a complaint was received from the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, who
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 2464/2025 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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:25
is employed as a security guard at Deshbandhu Apartments, Madavali,
Delhi. He alleged that during ongoing road construction work in the society,
a large tree had fallen and was obstructing the road. The tree had been cut by
the society members, and Petitioner No. 2 was attempting to set it on fire,
but was unsuccessful as the wood was not catching fire properly. Thereafter,
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly called the Complainant to assist in lighting
the fire. At that point, Petitioner No. 1 handed the Complainant a white can
containing sanitizer, instructing him to pour it onto the fire. The
Complainant claims that he objected, warning that sanitizer is a flammable
substance and could aggravate the fire. However, the Petitioners assured him
that no harm would be caused. Acting on their assurance, the Complainant
poured the sanitizer; however, as soon as he began doing so, the fire
intensified and the can exploded. As a result, the Complainant’s shirt caught
fire, and the fire spread further. It is further alleged that the Petitioners,
along with one Babu Ram, attempted to tear off the Complainant’s shirt,
during which Babu Ram sustained burn injuries on his hand. Water was then
poured on the Complainant, but he suffered further burn injuries, including
damage to the skin on his hand. Subsequently, the Petitioners took the
Complainant to R.K. Hospital in their car. The doctor there advised that the
Complainant be shifted to either Safdarjung Hospital or LNJP Hospital.
However, instead of following this medical advice, the Petitioners allegedly
took the Complainant to Hedgewar Hospital, where he was bandaged and
given medicines. Thereafter, they forcibly left him at his residence. The
Complainant attributes the burn injuries suffered by him to the alleged
negligence and carelessness of the Petitioners in attempting to light the fire.
On the basis of his complaint, the subject FIR was registered.
CRL.M.C. 2464/2025 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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:25
3. The Petitioners state that Respondent No. 2 has amicably resolved the
dispute with them, and has decided not to pursue the present FIR against
them. Pursuant to this settlement, a Mutual Settlement Deed dated 5th
October, 2023 was executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2.
4. A copy of the Settlement Deed has been placed on record and perused
by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all
disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily
give his no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR.
5. During the course of the present proceedings, the statement of
Respondent No. 2 was recorded before the Joint Registrar of this Court on
19th May, 2025, wherein he confirmed that he has voluntarily and without
any pressure or coercion from anyone, settled all his issues and disputes with
the Petitioners. He stated that he has executed the Mutual Settlement Deed
with the Petitioners out of his own free will.
6. In view of the settlement, the Complainant, who has appeared before
the Court in person and is identified by his counsel, has unequivocally stated
that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He has confirmed that
his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue
influence or coercion. He has further confirmed the receipt of the settlement
amount of INR 50,000/- as compensation, along with his salary for six
months. At this juncture, the Petitioners, who are also present in Court and
duly identified by the Investigating Officer, volunteer to make further
payment of INR 50,000/- to Respondent No. 2. The said amount is paid in
cash to Respondent No. 2, in the Court itself. 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. 2464/2025 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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:25
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 285 and 336 of IPC are non-compoundable, the
offences under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC are compoundable, with the
permission of the Court. 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. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab & Anr.4 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.,5 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, the4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 2464/2025 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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:25
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 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 285 and 336 of the IPC cannot
be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and they 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. 2464/2025 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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:25
the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no
worthwhile public interest. The Complainant in the present case has
categorically expressed his 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.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and quashing
FIR No. 710/2023 under Sections 285/336/337/338/34 of the IPC, registered
at P.S. Mandawali Fazalpur, 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(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 28, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 2464/2025 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 27/06/2025 at 21:38:25