[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Rahul Kumar Singh vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2102/2025
RAHUL KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harsh Raj Singh, Mr. Basant Kr.
Singh, Advocates with Petitioner in
person
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with SI Umesh Singh, PS
Special Cell
Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 02.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (Corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 457/2018 dated 1st
July, 2018, registered under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 20153 at P.S. Ranhola, Delhi and all
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are relatives who hail from the
same village. In March 2018, when Respondent No. 2 was around 16 years
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
CRL.M.C. 2102/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:20:39
of age, he came to Delhi along with the Petitioner and was employed at the
Petitioner’s factory. He was promised a monthly payment of INR 2,000,
along with other perks. However, despite working daily from 6:00 AM to
8:00 PM, no payment was made to him for three whole months. Feeling
exploited, Respondent No. 2 desired to return to his village. The present FIR
arises from an incident dated 21st June, 2018, when Respondent No. 2, then
aged about 17 years, went missing from the Petitioner’s namkeen factory
located in Nangli Vihar Extn., Baprola. Concerned about his disappearance,
the Petitioner made inquiries and lodged a PCR call on 22nd June, 2018,
recorded vide DD No.28A at P.S. Ranhola, Delhi. Subsequently, the police
traced Respondent No. 2 and placed him at Don Bosco Ashalayam, Delhi.
On 28th June, 2018, he was produced before the Child Welfare Committee-
VII at Nirmal Chaya Complex, Jail Road, Hari Nagar4, which directed legal
action to be taken against the Petitioner. Based on the statement of
Respondent No. 2 and the CWC’s order dated 28th June, 2018, the present
FIR, for employing a child and withholding his remuneration, was
registered.
3. In the present matter, the charge sheet stands filed and the case is
pending trial. However, during pendency of the proceedings before the Trial
Court, the parties have filed the present petition for quashing of the
impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom, in light of an
amicable settlement reached between the parties on their own free will,
without any coercion, pressure or undue influence and a Settlement Deed
dated 10th March, 2025 has been executed between the Petitioner and
3
“JJ Act”
4
“CWC”
CRL.M.C. 2102/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:20:39
Respondent No. 2. As per the Settlement, the Petitioner paid a total sum of
INR 50,000/- to Respondent No. 2, towards the full and final settlement of
the wages and in return, Respondent No. 2 consented to the quashing of the
impugned FIR.
4. On 27th March, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded
before the Joint Registrar, wherein he confirmed the amicable settlement
reached between the parties, without any force, undue influence and
pressure, and that he gives his consent to quash the impugned FIR. Further,
the statement of Investigating Officer, SI Dinesh Sigh, was also recorded
wherein he confirms duly identifying the parties and verifying the settlement
deed.
5. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the
quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this
Court, confirms his statement made to the Court and gives his no objection
to the quashing of the impugned FIR. To this effect, an Affidavit/No
Objection Certificate is also on record.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts and contentions.
Notably, the offence under Section 79 of the JJ Act is non-compoundable.
However, it is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their
powers under Section 582 of BNSS (formerly 482 of CrPC), can compound
offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a
compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh
& Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 the Supreme Court laid down guidelines
for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and
quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision
CRL.M.C. 2102/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:20:39
read 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.
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
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 2102/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:20:39
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]
7. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr.,6 the 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. The 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 serious6
(2017) 9 SCC 641CRL.M.C. 2102/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:20:39
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 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]
8. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have
amicably entered into a settlement, this Court is of the opinion that the
present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582 of BNSS as no
purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
9. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 457/2018 dated 1st July,
CRL.M.C. 2102/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:20:39
2018, registered under Section 79 of the JJ Act, at P.S. Ranhola, Delhi and
all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
10. The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement.
11. The present petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 2, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 2102/2025 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 09/07/2025 at 21:20:39
[ad_2]
Source link