Delhi High Court – Orders
Nishchay Gupta vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Os on 23 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4846/2025 & CRL.M.A. 21011/2025
NISHCHAY GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil Malik, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND OS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
SI Sandeep Kumar, PS: Alipur.
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for R-2 to
5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 23.07.2025
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. 138/2017 dated 18th April,
20173 under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 18604,
registered at P.S. Alipur and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is that the Petitioner was
driving a vehicle carrying Respondents No. 3 to 5 and the Victim
(Respondent No. 2’s son) as passengers when an accident occurred near
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“impugned FIR”
4
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4846/2025 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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:50
Sindhu Border, Khampur village on G.T. Road, Delhi. The vehicle veered
off the road and collided with a Neem tree, resulting in the death of the
Victim and severe injuries to the Petitioner and Respondents No. 3 to 5, all
of whom were subsequently hospitalized for treatment. An unknown caller
reported the car accident to P.S. Alipur, Delhi and accordingly, the
impugned FIR was registered. Subsequently, the chargesheet was filed,
wherein the Petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Sections
279/337/338/304A of the IPC.
3. The Petitioner states that he has known Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, as
well as the deceased, since childhood, and that they have all been close
friends since then. He states that with the intervention of family friends,
colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondents No. 2 to
5 have amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioner, and have decided
not to pursue the impugned FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, a
Settlement Agreement dated 09th July, 2025, was executed between the
Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 to 5.
4. A copy of the Settlement Agreement has been placed on record and
perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondents No. 2 to 5 have
mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and have
agreed to voluntarily give their no objection to the quashing of the impugned
FIR.
5. Respondents No. 2 to 5, who appear in person and are identified by
the Investigating Officer, state that they do not wish to pursue the FIR
proceedings. They submit that the incident in question was a tragic accident
and was not because of any negligence of the Petitioner, and they do not
hold the Petitioner responsible for the accident. Respondents No. 2 to 5 have
CRL.M.C. 4846/2025 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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:50
also stated that they have neither received, nor seek any monetary
consideration as part of this settlement. Particularly, Respondent No. 2, the
father of the victim has clarified that he has been awarded a compensation
amount of INR 10,00,000/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and
does not seek any additional compensation. He too has stated that he does
not hold the Petitioner responsible for the death of his son (Victim). In light
of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing
of the impugned FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC are non-compoundable,
Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC are compoundable by the person to whom
hurt is caused, with the permission of the Court. It is well settled that in the
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528
of 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 an5
(2012) 10 SCC 303CRL.M.C. 4846/2025 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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:50
an exercise in futility.”
[Emphasis added]
7. 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
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 4846/2025 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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:50
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. Although the offences under Sections 304A and 279 of 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 the prosecution may
not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest.
The parties in the present case have categorically expressed their
unwillingness to pursue the matter further and have 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. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the
impugned FIR, the ends of justice will be met if the Petitioner is put to cost.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
138/2017, P.S. Alipur, and proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
quashed, subject to payment of a cost of INR 20,000/- with the Delhi Police
Welfare Fund. The proof of payment be furnished to the concerned IO.
CRL.M.C. 4846/2025 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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:50
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
JULY 23, 2025
d.negi
CRL.M.C. 4846/2025 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 28/07/2025 at 22:02:50