Delhi High Court – Orders
Suraj Sharma & Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1175/2025 & CRL.M.A. 5221/2025
SURAJ SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Akshat Gupta, Mr.
Arvind Kaushik and Mr.
Vipin Attri, Advs.
Both the petitioner in
person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP
for the State with SI
Deepak Kumar, PS
Jahangir Puri.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr.
Sunil Dutt Vats, Advs. for
R-2.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 31.07.2025
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
473/2018 dated 18.10.2018, registered at Police Station Jahangir
Puri, for offences under Sections 354/506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘), including all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom. The FIR was registered on the complaint filed
by Respondent No. 2.
2. It is averred that at the time of the incident, Petitioner No.1
was the brother-in-law of Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.2
was her mother-in-law. It is alleged that on 30.09.2018, when
Respondent No.2 approached Petitioner No.2 to borrow a
CRL.M.C. 1175/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 05/08/2025 at 21:40:26
cylinder, Petitioner No.2 refused her request and abused her. It is
alleged that Petitioner No.1 came to the spot and started hurling
filthy abuses at Respondent No.2 and misbehaved with her. It is
also alleged that Petitioner No.1 snatched the chunni of
Respondent No.2. This led to registration of the present FIR.
3. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case against
Petitioner No.1 for the offences under Sections 323/ 354B/ 354/
506/ 509 of the IPC. Petitioner No.2 was chargesheeted for the
offences under Sections 323/506 of the IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
dispute arose due to discord between Respondent No.2 and the
petitioners, who were her in-laws.
5. He submits that all the disputes have been amicably
resolved by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated
07.08.2023, on their own free will, without any force, pressure or
coercion. He states that Respondent No.2 has since obtained a
decree of divorce by mutual consent and the parties wish to live
their lives peacefully in the future.
6. The parties are present in person in Court and have been
duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
7. On being asked, Respondent No.2 states that all the
disputes have been resolved and she has since moved on in life
after having divorced from her husband. She submits that she
does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present
FIR, and has no objection if the same are quashed.
8. Offences under Sections 323/506/509 of the IPC are
compoundable whereas offences under Sections 354/354B of the
IPC are non-compoundable.
CRL.M.C. 1175/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 05/08/2025 at 21:40:26
9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash offences which are 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.
CRL.M.C. 1175/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 05/08/2025 at 21:40:26
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)
10. 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 offenderCRL.M.C. 1175/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 05/08/2025 at 21:40:26
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 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
CRL.M.C. 1175/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 05/08/2025 at 21:40:26
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)
11. In the present case, Respondent No.2 has stated that all the
disputes have been resolved and she has since moved on in life.
She has also stated that she does not wish to pursue the
proceedings arising out of the present FIR. In the peculiar
circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will
result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to
pursue the case.
12. 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 BNSS.
13. In view of the above, FIR No. 473/2018 and all
CRL.M.C. 1175/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 05/08/2025 at 21:40:26
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
14. The present petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 31, 2025
‘KDK’
CRL.M.C. 1175/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 05/08/2025 at 21:40:26