Delhi High Court – Orders
Mukesh Kumar & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 18 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 790/2025 & CRL.M.A. 3722/2025
MUKESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudeep Yadav and Mr. Kapil
Jangra, Advocates.
Petitioners in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashneet Singh, APP for the State.
SI Naveen Sharma, PS: Bawana.
Mr. Sumit Garg and Mr. Akshat
Gupta, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 18.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 164/2016 dated 18th March,
2016 registered under Sections 323, 365 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
18603, at P.S. Bawana and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The subject FIR has been lodged on the complaint filed by
Respondent No. 2, a factory worker at DSIIDC Bawana Delhi Factory. The
Complainant alleges that he owed INR 16,000/- to Petitioners No.1 and 2
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 790/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:51:18
which he was not able to pay back due to his poor financial condition.
However, on 18th March, 2016, the Petitioners came to the factory and lured
him outside for a supposed talk. He alleged that when he went outside, he
was abducted by the Petitioners who forced him to sit in a WagonR car and
took him to a factory in Samaypur Gali No. 1. Once at the factory the
assailants alleged gave the complainant beatings and threatened him to pay
back the money or else they would beat him up again. Finding an
opportunity, the complainant escaped and fled the scene. Consequently,
based on the Complainant’s statement, the subject FIR was registered on
18th March, 2016, under Sections 323, 365 and 34 of the IPC. Pursuant to
investigation, a chargesheet has also been against the Petitioners under
Sections 365, 323 and 34 of IPC.
3. The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends,
colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondent No. 2 has
amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioners and has decided not to
pursue the present FIR against them. Pursuant to this settlement, a
Compromise Deed4 dated 23rd August, 2024, has also been executed
between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. A copy of the Deed has been
placed on record and perused by the Court.
4. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes
and differences with the Petitioners and has agreed to voluntarily give his no
objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. In view of the settlement, the
Complainant, who has appeared before the Court 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
CRL.M.C. 790/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:51:18
voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The
Petitioners have also joined the proceedings in person and are duly identified
by the Investigating Officer. They acknowledge their mistake and have
apologised to Respondent No. 2, which has been duly accepted by him. In
light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek
quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offence under Section 365 of IPC is non-compoundable, Section 323 of IPC
is compoundable by the person to whom the hurt is caused. 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:
“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]
4
“Deed”
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
CRL.M.C. 790/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:51:18
6. 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 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]
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 790/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:51:18
7. Although the offence under Section 365 of the IPC cannot be treated
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.
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.
8. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed FIR No.
164/2016 dated 18th March, 2016 registered under Sections 323, 365 and 34
of the IPC at P.S. Bawana and all proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed, subject to payment of a total cost of INR 10,000/- each by
the Petitioners to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of four
weeks from today. The proof of payment of cost be submitted with the
concerned Investigating Officer.
9. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
CRL.M.C. 790/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:51:18
10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 18, 2025
d.negi
CRL.M.C. 790/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:51:18
[ad_1]
Source link