[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Preet Singh @ Laddu & Anr vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2045/2025, CRL.M.A. 9198-9199/2025
PREET SINGH @ LADDU & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Rajshri Sharma and Ms. Shivani
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
with Mr. Rajeev Singh, ASI, PS-
Nihal Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 15.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 722/20233 under Sections
308/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 registered at P.S. Nihal Vihar
and all proceedings emanating therefrom. Subsequently, a chargesheet was
filed against the Petitioners under the aforesaid provisions.
2. The impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to a complaint filed
by Respondent No. 2, who alleged that on 25 th May, 2023, he visited the
residence of Petitioner No. 1, located in Gali No. 9, RZR Block, with the
intention of resolving a dispute. Upon arrival, both Petitioners No. 1 and 2
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“the impugned FIR”
CRL.M.C. 2045/2025 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 17/07/2025 at 22:01:49
were present. An attempt to discuss the issue was made, however, the
situation escalated, resulting in an argument that subsequently turned into a
physical altercation. When the Complainant attempted to leave, Petitioner
No. 1 allegedly blocked his path and forcefully held his hand, following
which Petitioner No. 2 struck him on the head with an iron rod, causing
bleeding. It is further alleged that they also assaulted the Complainant’s son-
in-law, who was accompanying him, and thereafter fled from the scene.
Subsequently, when the Complainant’s wife arrived at the spot, she called
the police, and the Complainant was taken to the hospital for medical
treatment.
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
Settlement Deed dated 5th September, 2023, was executed between the
Respondent No. 2 and the father of Petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the
Petitioners. As per its terms, Petitioners agreed to pay a total sum of INR
2,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as compensation.
4. On 26th March, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded
before the Joint Registrar of this Court, wherein he affirmed that he had
voluntarily, and without any pressure or coercion from any quarter, settled
all disputes and differences with the Petitioners.
5. Respondent No. 2, who is present in person and duly identified by the
Investigating Officer, reiterates that the decision to amicably resolve the
matter was made of his own free will and without any undue influence. He
4
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 2045/2025 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 17/07/2025 at 22:01:49
also confirms having received the full and final compensation from the
Petitioners in accordance with the terms set out in the Settlement Deed. In
view of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners pray for
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 308 of IPC is non-compoundable, Section 341 of IPC
is compoundable by the person restrained.
7. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C (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 an
an exercise in futility.”
[Emphasis supplied]
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
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 2045/2025 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 17/07/2025 at 22:01:49
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]
9. From the aforesaid decisions, it is evident 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
CRL.M.C. 2045/2025 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 17/07/2025 at 22:01:49
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 Cr.P.C to secure the ends of justice.
10. However, keeping in mind the fact that the chargesheet has been filed
and State machinery has been put to motion, the ends of justice would be
served if the Petitioners are put to cost.
11. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned FIR No. 722/2023 as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of INR 20,000/-
each which shall be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a
period of six weeks from today.
12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 15, 2025
nk
CRL.M.C. 2045/2025 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 17/07/2025 at 22:01:49
[ad_2]
Source link