Delhi High Court – Orders
Sahitya Subham Singh & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5498/2025, CRL.M.A. 23531/2025
SAHITYA SUBHAM SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rakesh Bhugra, Mr. Atin
Chadha, Ms. Manisha Chadha,
Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Dhruv Tomar
and Mr. Kartik Shoukan, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
with Mr. Lal Chand, SI, PS-S.B.
Dairy.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 12.08.2025
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. 980/20223 registered under
Sections 323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Shahbad
Dairy and all proceedings emanating therefrom. Subsequently, chargesheet
has been filed against the Petitioners under Sections 308/323/341/506/34 of
IPC.
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“the impugned FIR”
4
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 5498/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 22:57:44
2. The impugned FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint made by
Respondent No. 2, who alleged that on 29th December, 2022, at around 9:00
PM, he was present at his medical store when three boys were standing
nearby, waiting for their food order from a shop in the vicinity. The boys
were allegedly using abusive language towards the food shop owner.
Respondent No. 3, who runs a stationary shop adjacent to the medical store,
admonished them for their conduct. At this, one of the boys began arguing
and physically confronting Respondent No. 3. When Respondent No. 2
intervened, the boy pushed him, causing him to fall down the stairs of the
shop. That boy was later identified as Sahitya (Petitioner No. 1), who
allegedly instructed his companions, Kunal (Petitioner No. 2) and Suraj
(Petitioner No. 3), to restrain Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, Sahitya is
alleged to have punched Respondent No. 2 in the face and one of the other
boys struck him on the head with an object, causing Respondent No. 2 to
lose consciousness.
3. The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends,
colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondents No. 2
and 3 have amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioners and have
decided not to pursue the impugned FIR against them. Pursuant to this
settlement, the Petitioners and Respondents No. 2 and 3 executed a
Settlement Deed dated 28th July, 2025 whereby the said Respondents have
has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioners and
have agreed to voluntarily give their no-objection to the quashing of the
impugned FIR.
4. Respondents No. 2 and 3, who are present in person and duly
identified by the Investigating Officer, state that they do not wish to pursue
CRL.M.C. 5498/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 22:57:44
the FIR proceedings. Respondent No. 2 states that he has received INR
3,50,000/- from the Petitioners as his medical expenses. In light of the
amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the
impugned FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offence under Section 308 of IPC is non-compoundable, Sections 323, 341
and 506 of IPC are compoundable, with the permission of the Court.
6. It is well-settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528 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 exercise in futility.”
[Emphasis supplied]
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 and5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 5498/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 22:57:44
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]
8. As evident from the afore-noted extracts, 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
CRL.M.C. 5498/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 22:57:44
remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may not only
prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest. The
Complainants in the present case has categorically expressed their
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 the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
9. However, since the State machinery has been set into motion and
charges have been framed, justice will be served if the Petitioners are put to
cost.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and impugned
FIR No. 980/2022 as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
are hereby quashed, subject to depositing INR 7,500 cost/- each by the
Petitioners to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund.
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
AUGUST 12, 2025
nk
CRL.M.C. 5498/2025 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 13/08/2025 at 22:57:44