Delhi High Court – Orders
Sunil Kumar @ Sanjay & Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 21 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4794/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20765/2025
SUNIL KUMAR @ SANJAY & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Mr. Sunil
Kumar, Mr. Mayank Pandey,
Advocates for P-1 and P-2 with
Petitioners in person
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with ASI Devraj, PS Jafrabad
Ms. Bhanu Pratap, Advocate for R-2
&3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 21.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 142/2020 under Sections 308,
451 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Jafrabad and
all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution against the Petitioners is that a
compliant was received by the Complainant (Respondent No. 2), alleging
that on 21st March, 2020, when the brother of the Complainant was being
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
CRL.M.C. 4794/2025 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 24/07/2025 at 21:41:28
taken to the hospital due to an injury suffered by him, the Petitioners came
over to the Complainant’s house and started abusing him and his family by
saying derogatory things about his brother who had recently come back from
Dubai. The Complainant further stated that seeing such an altercation, his
coworker named Sonu – i.e., Respondent No. 3, came into the house to
pacify the situation, however, he was hit on the back of his head by
Petitioner No. 1 with an iron strip/rod. Thereafter, Sonu managed to run
away and on the intervention of the Complainant’s neighbours, the
Petitioners fled the scene. Later, the Complainant was informed that Sonu
was laying in the nearby street, unconscious and bleeding from his head and
he was rushed to the Jag Pravesh Hospital for treatment. Consequently,
based on the Complainant’s statement, the subject FIR was registered on
22nd March, 2020, against the Petitioners under Sections 308, 451 and 34 of
the IPC.
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 present FIR against them. Pursuant to this
settlement, a Compromise Deed dated 24th April, 2025, has also been
executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 and 3. A copy of the
Compromise Deed has been placed on record and perused by the Court.
4. As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 and 3 have
mutually resolved all their disputes and differences with the Petitioners and
have agreed to voluntarily give their no objection to the quashing of the
subject FIR.
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4794/2025 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 24/07/2025 at 21:41:28
5. It is noted that as per the chargesheet, the nature of the injury suffered
by Respondent No. 3, i.e., Sonu Kumar was simple. The Court has
interacted with Respondent No. 3, Sonu Kumar, who is present in person
along with Respondent No. 2 and has been identified by the IO, to discern
whether he has received any compensation from the Petitioners pursuant to
the settlement. In this regard, Respondent No. 3 states that he has received a
total compensation of INR 40,000/- from the Petitioners. On the specific
query of the Court, he states that he spent an amount of INR 22,000/- on his
medical treatment after the incident. Furthermore, considering the nature of
injuries involved, the Petitioners, who are also present before the Court and
are identified by the Investigating Officer, fairly state that they are willing to
give a further amount of INR 25,000/- to Respondent No. 3 as compensation
in lieu of the medical expenses incurred by him. The said amount has been
handed over to Respondent No. 3 in cash before the Court and has been
accepted by him.
6. In view of the settlement, Respondents No. 2 and 3 unequivocally
stated that they do not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings against the
Petitioners. They have confirmed that their decision to settle the matter is
voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. Therefore, in
light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek
quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offence under Section 308 of IPC is non-compoundable, Section 451 of IPC
is compoundable by the person in possession of the house trespassed upon.
It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases,
CRL.M.C. 4794/2025 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 24/07/2025 at 21:41:28
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.4 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 an exercise in futility.”
[Emphasis added]
8. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 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 guiding4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 4794/2025 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 24/07/2025 at 21:41:28
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]
9. Although the offence under Section 308 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 and the injured person in the present case have
categorically expressed their unwillingness to pursue the matter further and
CRL.M.C. 4794/2025 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 24/07/2025 at 21:41:28
have 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 528 of BNSS to secure the ends of
justice.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
142/2020 under Sections 308, 451 and 34 of the IPC, registered at P.S.
Jafrabad and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
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
JULY 21, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 4794/2025 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 24/07/2025 at 21:41:28
[ad_1]
Source link