Delhi High Court – Orders
Sumer Singh Vij And Anr vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 16 May, 2025
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2772/2025
SUMER SINGH VIJ AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gautam Sharma &
Mr. Parmeet Gupta, Advs.
Petitioner No. 1 in person
& Petitioner No. 2
(through VC)
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP
for the State
SI Yogesh Poonia, PS-
Rajinder Nagar
Mr. Kartavya Batra & Ms.
Anshika Batra, Advs. for
R2 & R3
Complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 16.05.2025
CRL.M.A. 12426/2025 (for exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2772/2025
3. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
235/2020 dated 09.11.2020, registered at Police Station Rajinder
Nagar, for offences under Sections 323/341/509/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘). The FIR was registered on a
complaint made by Respondent No. 2.
4. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case under
CRL.M.C. 2772/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 29/06/2025 at 18:54:35
Sections 323/324/341/354/427/504/506/509/34 of the IPC.
5. It is alleged that an altercation took place between the
petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 when Petitioner No. 1
hit the car of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. During the altercation,
Petitioner No. 2 also joined and gave beatings to Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. This led to the registration of the present FIR.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
parties are neighbours.
7. He submits that the petitioners have tendered their
unconditional apology for their behavior. He further submits that
the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and wish to live
their lives peacefully in the future.
8. Petitioner No. 1 is present in person and Petitioner No. 2 is
present through video-conference. They undertake not to indulge
in any such activity in future. They state that the parties being
neighbours, have decided to bury their disputes and live
peacefully in future. They further undertake that since all the
disputes have been settled, they will cooperate in compounding
of the cross-FIR being FIR No. 236/2020, which was registered
at the instance of the petitioners.
9. The petitioners further undertake that they will not harass
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or their family members in any manner
whatsoever.
10. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties
have amicably settled their disputes by way of Memorandum of
Understanding dated 05.08.2024, on their own free will, without
any coercion, undue influence, pressure or threat.
11. On 25.04.2025, Respondent No. 2 appeared before the
learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and gave a voluntary statement
that the dispute has been settled vide Memorandum of
CRL.M.C. 2772/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 29/06/2025 at 18:54:35
Understanding dated 05.08.2024.
12. The parties are present in person in Court and they have
been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
13. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on being asked, state that they
are satisfied with the apology tendered by the petitioners. He
states that they do not wish to pursue any proceeding arising out
of the present FIR and have no objection if the same is quashed.
14. Offences under Sections 323/341/427/504/506/509 of the
IPC are compoundable in nature and offences under Sections
324/354 of the IPC are non-compoundable.
15. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash offences which are non-
compoundable under the Code 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 HighCRL.M.C. 2772/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 29/06/2025 at 18:54:35
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.”
CRL.M.C. 2772/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 29/06/2025 at 18:54:35
(emphasis supplied)
16. 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.
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
CRL.M.C. 2772/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 29/06/2025 at 18:54:35
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
CRL.M.C. 2772/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 29/06/2025 at 18:54:35
or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In the present case, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have stated
that they have no remaining grievance against the petitioners,
who are neighbors of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that they are
satisfied with the petitioners’ unconditional apology. In the
peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present
FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do
not wish to pursue the case. In such circumstances, continuance
of the proceedings would only cause harassment and heart burn
amongst the parties.
18. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute, 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 considered opinion that it is a fit
case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’)
(erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
19. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State
machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be
served if the petitioners are put to cost.
20. In view of the above, FIR No. 235/2020 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject
to payment of total cost of ₹10,000/- by petitioners, to be
deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period
of three months from date.
21. Proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned
SHO.
CRL.M.C. 2772/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 29/06/2025 at 18:54:35
22. The present petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MAY 16, 2025
“SS”
CRL.M.C. 2772/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 29/06/2025 at 18:54:35