Delhi High Court – Orders
Mohammad Asif vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 20 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5098/2025
MOHAMMAD ASIF .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Kansal, Advocate with
Petitioner in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
with Mr. Harswaroop, ASI, PS-Sarai
Rohilla.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 20.08.2025
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. 241/2024, under Section 304A
of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla and all
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution against the Petitioner is that
a General Diary entry was received at Police Station Sarai Rohilla pursuant
to a PCR call, informing that one person, namely Mustafa, aged about 30
years, had died due to electric shock while at work. Acting upon the said
information, the ASI visited MGS Hospital, Rohtak, where it was
ascertained that the deceased had been brought dead, with the purported
history of electrocution while operating a molding machine at Vikas Plastic
Line, situated at Plot No. 189, Phase 2, Shahzadabagh, Inderlok.
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 5098/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 27/08/2025 at 21:27:39
Consequently, the subject FIR was registered. The Petitioner, is the owner of
the molding unit where the deceased was employed.
3. The Petitioner states that, with the intervention of common friends,
colleagues and other respectable members of society, he has amicably
settled the dispute with Respondent No. 2, the mother and the only legal
representative of the deceased. In terms of the settlement, the Petitioner
agreed to pay a sum of ₹6,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2. In addition, the
Petitioner also bore various incidental expenses, including those incurred for
transporting the deceased’s body, arranging food after burial, etc.,
amounting to approximately ₹72,000/-.
4. However, taking note of the compensation payable under the
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, counsel for the Petitioner, on the
previous occasion, sought time to obtain instructions regarding the
possibility of enhancing the settlement amount. Pursuant thereto, the
Petitioner has now agreed to pay an additional sum of ₹3,00,000/- to
Respondent No. 2, thereby enhancing the total settlement amount to
₹10,22,000/-.
5. In view of the settlement, Respondent No. 2, who has appeared before
the Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states
that she does not wish to pursue the FIR 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, she
has already received a sum of INR 6,50,000/- as well as 72,000/- paid for
various expenses. Additionally, in accordance with the Agreement, the
Petitioner has tendered the balance amount, of which INR 2,50,000/- by way
of a demand draft bearing DD No. 504438 dated 18th August, 2025 drawn on
CRL.M.C. 5098/2025 Page 2 of 5
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 27/08/2025 at 21:27:39
ICICI Bank in the name of Respondent No. 2. The balance amount of INR
50,000/- has been tendered by way of cash, making the cumulative
settlement amount to be 10,22,000/-. The same have been duly received and
acknowledged by Respondent No. 3. A copy of the aforesaid DD as well as
the cash receipt have been handed over across the board, and are taken on
record. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner
seeks quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offence under Section 304A of the IPC is 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.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 Supplied]
7. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 the
4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 5098/2025 Page 3 of 5
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 27/08/2025 at 21:27:39
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 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. Although the offence under Section 304A of the IPC cannot be treated
CRL.M.C. 5098/2025 Page 4 of 5
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 27/08/2025 at 21:27:39
as strictly ‘in personam’, and it touches 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 the prosecution may
not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest.
Respondent No. 2 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 FIR No.
241/2024, registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla, as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 20, 2025/nk
CRL.M.C. 5098/2025 Page 5 of 5
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 27/08/2025 at 21:27:39
[ad_1]
Source link