Delhi High Court – Orders
Shailesh Kumar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 30 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4020/2025 & CRL.M.A. 17495/2025
SHAILESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.S. Verma and Mr. Rahul Garg,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for R-1.
SI Karan Singh and SI Vivek Kr.
Chahar.
Respondent No. 2 (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 30.05.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 0095/2019 under Sections
323/354/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Lodi
Colony and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution against the Petitioners is
that a complaint was filed by the Complainant (Respondent No. 2), alleging
that the Petitioners, who resided in her colony, would routinely harass the
residents and tease girls passing by. The Petitioners allegedly lured the
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4020/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:42
Complainant’s son into organizing a New Year’s party on the roof of her
house, during which they caused disturbance by playing loud music and
making noise late into the night. Thereafter, at approximately 4:00 AM, one
of the boys, Kunal (Petitioner No. 2), approached the Complainant seeking
permission to collect some belongings left on the roof. The Complainant
granted permission; however, while returning from the rooftop, Petitioner
No. 2 allegedly forcibly kept his hands on her waist and hugged her, asking
her if he could kiss her on her lips. The Complainant responded by stating
that she regarded him as her own son and admonished him, saying that such
behaviour was inappropriate. However, the Complainant alleged that the
misconduct continued. On one occasion, when guests from London were
visiting her residence, the Petitioners allegedly threw balloons at them. It is
further alleged that they misbehaved with four to five girls passing by, who
were employed as housekeepers. Allegedly, one of the boys in the group
told the Complainant that he was the son of an SHO, implying that she
would not be able to take any action against him. The group would
frequently stand in front of her house, allegedly threatening to shoot videos
and make them go viral. Consequently, based on the Complainant’s
statement, the subject FIR was registered.
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 him. Pursuant to this settlement, a
Memorandum of Understanding4 dated 24th May, 2025, was executed
between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2.
CRL.M.C. 4020/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:42
4. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the
Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes
and differences with the Petitioners and has agreed to voluntarily give her no
objection to the quashing of the subject FIR.
5. Respondent No. 2 is present before the Court in person, and is duly
identified by the Investigating Officer. She states that the Petitioners are her
neighbours, and that she has amicably resolved the dispute with the
Petitioners. She further states that she has voluntarily entered into the
settlement agreement, without any coercion or pressure, and that she has no
objection with the quashing of the FIR. An affidavit cum No Objection
Certificate to this effect has also been placed on record. In light of the
amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek 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 354 of IPC is non-compoundable, Sections 323, 506
and 509 of IPC are compoundable by the person to whom the hurt is caused,
the person intimidated and the woman insulted or whose privacy was
intruded upon, with the permission of the Court. It is well settled that in the
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 582
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, if4
“MoU”
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
CRL.M.C. 4020/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:42
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 added]
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 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.
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 4020/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:42
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. Although the offence under Section 354 of the IPC cannot be treated
as strictly ‘in personam’, and it touches upon public concerns rather than
being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also account for the
practical realities of securing a conviction in the present case. 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 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 her
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. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed FIR No.
CRL.M.C. 4020/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:42
0095/2019 registered at P.S. Lodi Colony, as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 30, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 4020/2025 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 28/06/2025 at 00:14:42