Delhi High Court – Orders
Satish Sharma & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 17 July, 2025
$~84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1294/2025
SATISH SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri,
Advocate along with
petitioners in person.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
APP for the State with SI
Bharat Singh, PS Uttam
Nagar.
Respondents No.2 to 4 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 17.07.2025
CRL.M.A. 5810/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1294/2025 & CRL.M.A. 5811/2025 (Stay)
3. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
542/2011 dated 03.11.2011, registered at Police Station Uttam
Nagar, for offences under Sections 452/323/324/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘), including all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom. The chargesheet has been filed in
the present case under Sections 452/324/325/34 of the IPC.
4. The brief facts are that on 02.11.2011 at around 8:40 p.m.
Respondent No. 2’s father had gone to get medicines.
5. It is alleged that Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 started abusing
Respondent No. 2’s father, whereafter, Respondent No. 2 took
CRL.M.C. 1294/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:36:20
him inside the house.
6. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioners entered the house
of Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 4 allegedly started
beating Respondent No. 2’s mother.
7. It is alleged that Petitioner No. 2 stabbed Respondent No.
2’s right hand with a sharp object, thereafter Petitioner Nos. 2
and 3 started beating Respondent No. 2’s brother-in-law.
8. It is further alleged that thereafter they started beating
Respondent No. 2’s father. Pursuant to which the present FIR
was registered.
9. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter
has been amicably settled between the parties by way of
Settlement Deed dated 03.10.2024.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
parties are neighbors and the altercation arose between the
parties out of a petty dispute. He submits that the matter has been
pending for more than a decade and the parties wish to live
peacefully in the future.
11. The parties are present in person and have been duly
identified by the Investigating Officer.
12. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on being asked state that they have
arrived at the settlement out of their own free will, without any
coercion, pressure or undue influence. They state that they have
no objection if the present FIR and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom be quashed.
13. Offence under Section 325 of the IPC is compoundable
whereas offence under Section 452/324 of the IPC are non-
compoundable.
14. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
CRL.M.C. 1294/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:36:20
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash proceedings in which
offence is non-compoundable 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.
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.
CRL.M.C. 1294/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:36:20
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)
15. 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. 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.
CRL.M.C. 1294/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:36:20
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 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)
16. It is submitted that the parties are neighbours and have
CRL.M.C. 1294/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:36:20
settled the dispute amicably. Keeping in view the nature of the
dispute and that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes,
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 process of Court. I am of the
opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
17. However, keeping in mind the fact that the matter is
pending since the year 2011 and 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. 542/2011 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject
to payment of total cost of ₹20,000/- by the petitioners, to be
deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period
of four weeks from date.
19. Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the
concerned SHO.
20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 17, 2025
DU
CRL.M.C. 1294/2025 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 22/07/2025 at 21:36:20