Delhi High Court – Orders
Vinod Kumar Pandit And Anr vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4196/2025
VINOD KUMAR PANDIT AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajbir Sagar, Advocate with
Petitioners (in-Persons).
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
SI Shivam Sahu, P.S. Krishna Nagar.
Respondent No. 2 (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 25.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 375/2022 dated 17th
June, 2022, registered under Sections 288, 304A and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18603 at P.S. Krishna Nagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the subject FIR was registered against the Petitioners in
respect of an incident that occurred on 16th June, 2022, wherein a
construction worker employed by the Petitioners died after falling from the
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4196/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 30/07/2025 at 21:48:05
4th floor of the under-construction building. In the said FIR, the Complainant
alleged that the Petitioners did not provide the construction employees with
the requisite safety equipment, due to which the accident occurred.
3. The parties have thus arrived at a settlement as per terms recorded in a
settlement deed dated 2nd May, 2023. The deceased is survived by his wife,
Smt. Yashoda Devi (Respondent No. 2) and her 4 daughters, 3 of whom are
already married and one daughter, who is a minor, is currently living with
Smt. Yashoda Devi.
4. A copy of the settlement 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 Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily
give her no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. In this regard, her
Affidavit/ No Objection Certificate is also on record.
5. It is noted that, on the last date of hearing, the Petitioners had
voluntarily offered to make an additional payment of INR 2 lakhs to Smt.
Yashoda Devi towards full and final settlement. Subject to the encashment
of this balance amount, Respondent No. 2 had expressed her no objection to
the quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.
Furthermore, the Investigating Officer was handed copies of the proof of
payments made to Smt. Yashoda Devi (both electronically and in cash) and
was directed to file a Status Report confirming the same. The said Status
Report has been submitted across the board and is taken on record. It
indicates that the entire payment amounting to INR 11,19,000/-, made to the
family of the deceased, has been duly verified and confirmed. In light of the
amicable settlement between the parties, the Petitioners pray for quashing of
the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
CRL.M.C. 4196/2025 Page 2 of 5
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 30/07/2025 at 21:48:05
6. The Court has considered the facts and the submissions of the parties.
It is noted that the offences under Sections 288 and 304A are non-
compoundable. However, it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 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.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]
7. 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 the4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 4196/2025 Page 3 of 5
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 30/07/2025 at 21:48:05
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.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. Although the offences under Section 288 and 304A of the IPC cannot
be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and they touch 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
CRL.M.C. 4196/2025 Page 4 of 5
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 30/07/2025 at 21:48:05
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 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of
CrPC) to secure the ends of justice.
9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
375/2022 dated 17th June, 2022, registered under Sections 288, 304A and 34
of IPC at P.S. Krishna Nagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed.
10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
11. It is clarified that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the
minor child.
12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 25, 2025/as
CRL.M.C. 4196/2025 Page 5 of 5
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 30/07/2025 at 21:48:05