Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 21 August, 2025
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21.08.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 4715/2025
SURESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Adv.
Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan,
APP for the State with SI Vinod
Kumar, PS Palam Village.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 673/2024, dated
19.11.2024, registered at P.S Palam Village, Delhi under Section
309(6) BNS [394 IPC] and all proceedings emanating therefrom on
the basis of settlement between the parties.
2. As per averments made in the FIR, on 18.11.2024 at around 3
PM, Umed Ali i.e. victim/father of respondent no. 2 was returning to
his fruit cart from the washroom when the petitioner allegedly kicked
him on his private part and robbed him by snatching Rs. 15,000-
CRL.M.C. 4715/2025 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:23.08.2025
18:40:51
20,000/-. The Respondent no.2 took his father/victim to Indira Gandhi
Hospital, Dwarka- where the doctors referred him to Safdarjung
Hospital. Consequently, FIR No. 673/2024 was lodged at instance of
Respondent no. 2 against the petitioner.
3. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved
their disputes with the intervention of common friends and well
wishers and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing in
the form of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.05.2025. It is
submitted that parties are well acquainted to each other since past 20-
25 years and pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, parties have
mutually agreed to end the dispute and cooperate in quashing the
aforesaid FIR. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated
13.05.2025 has been placed on record as Annexure B.
4. Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been
identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating
Officer SI Vinod Kumar, from PS Palam Village.
5. Respondent No. 2 submits that victim has passed away on
30.11.2024 and he does not wish to pursue the present dispute. A copy
of the death certificate has been placed on record as Annexure C. He
confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner
without any force, fear, coercion and he has willingly executed the
MoU dated 13.05.2025 with the petitioner and has no objection if the
FIR No. 673/2024 is quashed against the Petitioner.
CRL.M.C. 4715/2025 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:23.08.2025
18:40:51
6. Learned Additional PP appearing for the State, has strongly
opposed the quashing of FIR No. 673/2024 stating that the offence
committed by the petitioner is of a grave and serious nature punishable
with imprisonment for life, or with RI upto 10 years alongwith fine.
The act committed by the Petitioner is not a case of mere robbery, but
also of voluntarily causing hurt which unfortunately resulted in the
demise of the victim/father of the Respondent no.2. It is further
submitted that even though the MoU may be executed with mutual
consent, such grave act of the petitioner shall not warrant the relief of
quashing by this Court. It is lastly contended that the petitioner is
currently on bail since 22.11.2024.
7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has recognized that settlement in serious offences has
no legal sanction. It was observed as under:-
“48. A five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another was called
upon to determine, inter alia, the question whether the High Court has the
power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings or
allow the compounding of the offences in the cases which have been
specified as non-compoundable offences under the provisions of Section
320 of the Code. The five-Judge Bench referred to quite a few decisions of
this Court including the decisions in Madhu Limaye, Bhajan Lal, L.
Muniswamy, Simrikhia, B.S. Joshi1 and Ram Lal and framed the
following guidelines:
“a. Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences
are introduced for aggravation of the case.
b. Cases pertaining to property disputes between close relations,
which are predominantly civil in nature and they have a genuine or
belaboured dimension of criminal liability. Notwithstanding a
touch of criminal liability, the settlement would bring lasting peace
and harmony to larger number of people.
CRL.M.C. 4715/2025 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:23.08.2025
18:40:51
c. Cases of dispute between old partners or business concerns with
dealings over a long period which are predominantly civil and are
given or acquire a criminal dimension but the parties are
essentially seeking a redressal of their financial or commercial
claim.
d. Minor offences as under Section 279, IPC may be permitted to
be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the
parties. Yet another offence which remains non- compoundable is
Section 506 (II), IPC, which is punishable with 7 years
imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under
Section 506 IPC in most cases is based on the oral declaration with
different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought
to be liberally compounded, are Sections 147 and 148, IPC, more
particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be
added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No. 17
of 1999 (Section 3) has made Sections 506(II) IPC, 147 IPC and
148, IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under
Section 320, Cr.P.C.
e. The offences against human body other than murder and
culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of
transaction would fall in the category where compounding may
not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity
or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall
in the prohibited category. Offences committed by Public
Servants purporting to act in that capacity as also offences
against public servant while the victims are acting in the
discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable.
Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter-VII (relating to
army, navy and air force) must remain non-compoundable.
f. That as a broad guideline the offences against human body other
than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be
compounded when the court is in the position to record a finding
that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair…..
58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the
fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although
offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of
criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is
restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No
doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist
in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of
society and it is not safe to leave the crime doer only because he and the
victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paidCRL.M.C. 4715/2025 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:23.08.2025
18:40:51
compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law,
with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender
and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences
which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen
out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating
to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim
and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent
power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it
is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any
likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on
its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.”
8. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High
Courts for quashing the proceedings based on settlements. The
relevant observations in the said decision read 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.
CRL.M.C. 4715/2025 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:23.08.2025
18:40:51
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.”
9. Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to quash FIRs or criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse
of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme
Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 sets limits to the
High Court’s power, emphasizing that it should be used sparingly and
only in exceptional cases and laid down specific circumstances where
FIR can be quashed. It was held that quashing is justified where
allegations do not disclose an offence, are absurd or mala fide, or
CRL.M.C. 4715/2025 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:23.08.2025
18:40:51
where there exists a legal bar. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab
(supra) it was clarified that quashing on the basis of compromise is
permissible in private or matrimonial disputes, but not in heinous or
serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, corruption, or offences
having serious impact on society, where the Court cannot quash
merely because parties have settled. Thus, the jurisdiction under
Section 482 is extraordinary and must balance individual justice with
societal interest.
10. In the present case, the victim was kicked on his private parts by
the petitioner and was also robbed Rs. 15,000-20,000/-. The said
incident took place on 18.11.2024 and the victim died on 30.11.2024.
The link between the injuries caused and the cause of death is yet not
known inasmuchas the investigation is still pending and the
chargesheet has yet not been filed. The allegations are grave and
serious in nature and the offence under section 309(6) BNS is
punishable with imprisonment upto life or with RI of upto 10 years
alongwith fine. The commission of such offences create deep impact
on the society and allowing the quashing of such an offence would
send wrong message. Merely because the parties are known to each
other and have mutually executed a MoU does not ipso facto warrant
the quashing of FIR. The rationale is that the Court must safeguard
public interest and the rule of law, ensuring that serious offences are
not trivialized by private settlements.
CRL.M.C. 4715/2025 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:23.08.2025
18:40:51
11. In view of the cumulative facts, I do not deem it fit to quash the
abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto at this
stage.
12. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
August 21, 2025
SK/AK
CRL.M.C. 4715/2025 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:23.08.2025
18:40:51