Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 10, 2025
SH. NARESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta & Mr. Vineet Hans, Advs.
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State
SI Rahul Mehta, PS- Prasad Nagar Mr. Amit Tayal, Adv. for
R2 R2 in person
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 328/2018 dated 17.11.2018, registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar, for the offences under Sections 380/411/454 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is alleged that on 17.11.2018 while Respondent No. 2, who is an electrician by profession, was working at House NO. 11650, Street No. 1, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi, the petitioner came and went to the first floor of the said property.
3. It is alleged that the petitioner stole two bags containing electrical goods, whereafter, Respondent No. 2 ran after the petitioner and caught hold of him. Pursuant to the complaint given by Respondent No. 2 the present FIR was registered.
4. The Chargesheet has been filed in the present case for offences under Sections 380/411/454 of the IPC.
5. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of Memorandum of Undertaking dated 07.08.2025, out of their own free will, without any undue influence and pressure.
6. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
7. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that he has since forgiven the petitioner and does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed. The same is also supported by his Affidavit of no objection.
8. Offence under Section 411 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas offences under Section 380/454 of the IPC are noncompoundable.
9. 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 noncompoundable 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 Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
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 Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
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 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 he has no remaining grievance and he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it seems unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when the complainant himself does not wish to pursue the case.
12. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, 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 opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
13. However, keeping in mind the fact that the present FIR was registered way back in the year 2018, the chargesheet has been filed in the present case and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.
14. In view of the above, FIR No. 328/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of ₹20,000/- as compensation to Respondent No. 2 and cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Martyrs’ Fund within a period of 4 weeks.
15. Let the proof of payment of compensation and deposit of cost be submitted with the concerned IO/SHO.
16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
17. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 10, 2025 “SS”