Delhi High Court – Orders
Nazir @Naziruddin Ansari & Ors vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 14 February, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~44 & 53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4786/2025
NAZIR @NAZIRUDDIN ANSARI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sachit Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with SI Pankaj Kumar, PS Jyoti
Nagar
Mr. Prashant Yadav, Advocate for R-
2
+ CRL.M.C. 1079/2025, CRL.M.A. 4900-4901/2025
FIROZ @ MOHAMMAD FIROZ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Yadav, Advocate
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with SI Pankaj Kumar, PS Jyoti
Nagar
Mr. Sachit Sharma, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 14.02.2025
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 19731 (now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
1
“CrPC”
CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 07/03/2025 at 23:08:11
Sanhita, 20232), seeking quashing of cross FIRs, the details of which are as
follows:
(i) In CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 – FIR No. 381/2016 dated 16th August, 2016
under Sections 364, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 3, registered
at P.S. Jyoti Nagar, Delhi, against Nazir, Aetul Ameer, Rajiuddin and Sallu,
and
(ii) In CRL.M.C. 1079/2025 – FIR No. 397/2016 dated 30th August, 2016,
under Section 323, 452 and 506 of IPC, registered at P.S. Jyoti Nagar, Delhi,
against Firoz.
2. The FIR No. 381/2016 against 4 accused persons – Nazir, Aetul
Ameer, Rajiuddin and Sallu – was filed on the complaint of Firoz – the
accused in FIR No. 397/2016; and whereas, FIR No. 397/2016 was filed on
a complaint made by Ms. Seema, wife of one of the accused Rajiuddin.
3. Briefly stated, the case of Firoz against the four accused persons is
that on 12th August, 2016 his wife and his sister-in law Nisha had a quarrel
regarding the water motor of the joint family property. Nisha – the sister-in-
law of Firoz then called her brothers over to the house, who upon arrival,
started fighting with Firoz. When Firoz ran away to save himself, but he was
caught and beat up by the four accused persons, who then also took him in a
red coloured car to an apartment complex in Vaishali, Ghaziabad. The
accused persons then took Firoz to a room on the 11 th floor of the apartment
complex and while Rajiuddin and Sallu held him down, Amir and Nazir
used a sharp object to draw a cross mark on Firoz’s back. The accused
further threatened Firoz by stating that the mark was a sign of danger and if
2
“BNSS”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 07/03/2025 at 23:08:11
Firoz does not vacate the joint family property, he will be killed. Afterwards
the accused brought Firoz back to Kardampuri and left him on the street.
Thereafter, police were called and Firoz was taken to GTB Hospital for
medical treatment. Pursuant to this physical assault and a complaint by
Firoz, the FIR no. 381/2016 was registered. Pertinently, in his complaint to
the police, Firoz disclosed that there was an ongoing dispute regarding the
division of the said property for a few years.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Seema, wife of one of the accused Rajiuddin
in the FIR No. 381/2016, filed a complaint against Firoz, stating that on 12th
August, 2016, at around 9:30 PM, Firoz along with his brother-in-law Sonu
@Deva came to her house and started to quarrel with her. She stated that
Son@ Deva was a known miscreant in the area and he was known to be
hiding from the U.P. police. When Seema asked the persons to leave, they
started beating her up. To save herself, she first ran to her bedroom,
however, Firoz entered the room and kicked and punched her again. Then
she ran out to the street, where again Firoz caught a hold of her and started
to abuse and threaten to kill her. Due to the commotion, a few people from
the locality gathered around, because of which Firoz ran away.
Subsequently, sometime later, Firoz came to Seema’s room again in a
drunken stated and started to fight with her, at which point in time she called
on the police number 100. However, Firoz fled from the spot. The police
then escorted Seema to GTB Hospital for medical treatment and after a few
days, she came to the police station and made a statement, leading to the
registration of FIR No. 397/2016 under Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC
against Firoz.
5. In both of the above cross FIRs, the chargesheets have been filed
CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 07/03/2025 at 23:08:11
against the respective accused persons and the matter is pending
consideration of the Trial Court. All of the Petitioners submit that during the
pendency of the trial proceedings in the above cases, on the intervention of
relatives and respectable persons of society, all of the parties have amicably
settled the dispute between themselves. In this regard, the Petitioners in both
cases submit that they have also executed a Memorandum of Understanding4
dated 10th November, 2023. The said MoU is executed between all the
parties:
i. Seema (wife of Rajiuddin) the Complainant in FIR No. 397/2016;
ii. Firoz, the Complainant in FIR No. 381/2016 and accused in FIR No.
397/2016;
iii. Nazir@Naziruddin Ansari, accused in FIR No. 381/2016;
iv. Rajiuddin, accused in FIR No. 381/2016;
v. Sallu, accused in FIR No. 381/2016 and
vi. Amir, accused in FIR No. 381/2016.
6. As per the MoU, both the complainants – i.e., Seema and Firoz, have
agreed to settle the matter and seek joint quashing of the litigations arising
out of the cross FIRs. 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 FIR
proceedings. 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 Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.5 has
4
“MoU”
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 07/03/2025 at 23:08:12
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, 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.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 07/03/2025 at 23:08:12
9. Applying the principles laid down in the above decisions, this Court
notes that while the offences under Sections 365, 324 and 452 of IPC are
non-compoundable, the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC allows this
Court to quash criminal proceedings in cases where an amicable settlement
has been reached.
10. The parties present before the Court are duly identified by the IO, as
well as their counsel. Ms. Seema, the Complainant in FIR No. 397/2016 and
Mr. Firoz, the Complainant in FIR No. 381/2016 confirm the MoU dated
10th November, 2023 and state that the parties, with the assistance of their
family members, amicably resolved their dispute. He confirms the receipt of
the full and final settlement amount of INR 40,000/- from the accused
persons in FIR No. 381/2016, as per the MoU, towards litigation and
medical expenses borne by him.
11. While it is true that offences under Sections 365, 324 and 452 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
CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 07/03/2025 at 23:08:12
Exchequer. In light of the settled legal position, the present case is fit for
quashing under Section 482 of CrPC.
12. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the
impugned cross FIRs, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioners.
Accordingly, all the Petitioners are directed to deposit INR 2,500/- each with
the Delhi Police Welfare Fund.
13. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are allowed and FIR
No. 381/2016 under Sections 364, 324 and 34 of IPC and FIR No. 397/2016
under Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC, both registered at P.S. Jyoti Nagar
are quashed. Accordingly, all proceedings emanating from the above two
FIRs are also quashed.
14. It is expected that the parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.
15. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
16. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2025
CRL.M.C. 1040/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 07/03/2025 at 23:08:12
