Delhi High Court – Orders
Pratap Chandra@Chand & Ors vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 21 July, 2025
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4137/2025
PRATAP CHANDRA@CHAND & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Neeraj & Ms. Shweta
Soni, Advs. along with all
the three petitioners.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP
for the State.
SI Shamsher Singh, PS Pul
Prahladpur.
Mr. Neelkanth Kumar,
Adv. for R-2 along with R-
2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 21.07.2025
CRL.M.A. 18115/2025 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4137/2025
3. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR
No.180/2017 dated 22.09.2017, registered at Police Station Pul
Prahlad Pur, for offences under Sections 354/323/506/509 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘).
4. It is alleged that on 21.09.2017, Petitioner No.1 came to
the shop of Respondent No.2 and misbehaved with her. It is
alleged that Petitioner No.1 hit Respondent No.2 on her chest and
threw away all the goods of her shop as well. Thereafter, on
22.09.2017, Petitioner No.1 again went to the shop of
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 08/08/2025 at 21:57:50
Respondent No.2 with some people and threatened her. This led
to the registration of the present FIR.
5. In her statement under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, Respondent No.2 alleged that on
21.09.2017, after Petitioner No.1 had misbehaved with her,
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 came there and gave beatings to
Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 further alleged that the said
accused persons had broken her shop and threatened Respondent
No.2 and her family with dire consequences.
6. Charges were framed against the petitioners for offences
under Sections 380/34, 323/34, 427/34, 506(II)/34, 509/34 and
451/34 of the IPC. Petitioner No.1 was also charged for the
offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
parties are neighbours and the altercation took place due to petty
misunderstanding. He further submits that the parties have
amicably resolved their disputes and they have decided to bury
their disputes and live peacefully in future.
8. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties
have settled the dispute before Mediation Centre, Saket Courts,
New Delhi by way of settlement dated 07.08.2024, on their own
free will, without any coercion, undue influence, pressure or
threat. It is stated that a sum of ₹40,000/- has already been given
to Respondent No.2 as compensation as well.
9. The parties are present in person in Court and they have
been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
10. The petitioners apologise for their conduct. They
undertake to not indulge in any such activity in future. They
further undertake that they will not harass Respondent No. 2 and
her family members in any manner whatsoever.
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 08/08/2025 at 21:57:50
11. Respondent No. 2, on being asked, states that she is
satisfied with the apology tendered by the petitioners. She states
that she does not wish to pursue any proceeding arising out of the
present FIR and has no objection if the same is quashed.
12. Offences under Sections 323/427/509/451 of the IPC are
compoundable in nature, whereas offences under Sections
354/380/506(II) of the IPC are non-compoundable.
13. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash offences which are non-
compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a
compromise between the accused and the complainant. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for
High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the
proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had observed as under :-
“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.
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 08/08/2025 at 21:57:50
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)
14. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State
of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had observed as under :-
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in
the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of
the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process
of any court or to secure the ends of justice. TheThis 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 08/08/2025 at 21:57:50
provision does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in
the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High
Court to quash a first information report or a
criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an
offence. While compounding an offence, the power
of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal
proceeding or complaint should be quashed in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the
High Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the inherent
power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court
has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be
exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or
first information report should be quashed on the
ground that the offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no exhaustive
elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section
482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute
has been settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though
the victim or the family of the victim have settled
the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not
private in nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the trial in
such cases is founded on the overriding element
of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there
may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a civil
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 08/08/2025 at 21:57:50
dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise
from commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise
between the disputants, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set
out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above.
Economic offences involving the financial and
economic well-being of the State have implications
which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court would
be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a
financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of upon the
financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 has stated that she
has no remaining grievance against the petitioners, who are
neighbors of her and that she is satisfied with the petitioners’
unconditional apology. In the peculiar circumstances of this case,
it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when
Respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such
circumstances, continuance of the proceedings would only cause
harassment and heartburn amongst the parties.
16. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, this Court feels that no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and
continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the
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 08/08/2025 at 21:57:50
process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the BNSS.
17. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State
machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be
served if the petitioners are put to cost.
18. In view of the above, FIR No.180/2017 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject
to payment of total cost of ₹10,000/- by petitioners, to be
deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period
of three months from date.
19. Proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned
SHO.
20. The present petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 21, 2025
“SK”
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 08/08/2025 at 21:57:50