Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 22, 2025
MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Garg, Mr. Rajeev Kapoor, Mr. Shivam Bharara and Mr. Shubham Bharara, Advocates.
AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State
Ravinder Chandra, PS Hazarat Nizamuddin.
Ms. Navneet Kaur and Ms. Minaj, Advocates for R-2 along
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 74/2019 dated 21.03.2019, registered at Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin for offences under Sections 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case under Sections 304A of the IPC.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the victim was engaged by the petitioner for putting up banners. On 20.03.2019, when the victim was putting up banners near Zakir Hussain Marg, he fell down from a considerable height and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to the hospital, however, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
3. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has amicably been settled between the petitioner and legal heirs of the deceased by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.02.2025, out of their own free will, without any pressure, force, fraud, coercion or undue influence.
4. The parties are present before this Court in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of ₹3,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2.
6. A sum of ₹2,25,000/- has been handed over today in the Court by way of demand draft bearing no. 377690 dated 21.10.2025 drawn on by Union Bank, Neb Sarai.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is willing to pay an additional sum of ₹4,00,000/- to the minor children (₹2,00,000/- each) of the deceased. He submits that FDRs of the said amount will be deposited with the learned Registrar General of this Court within a period of one week from today.
8. Further, on being asked, Respondent No 2, who is the wife of the deceased, states that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR, and has no objection if the same are quashed.
9. Offence under Section 337 of the IPC is compoundable in nature. Whereas the offence under Section 304A of the IPC is non-compoundable in nature.
10. 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 (‘CrPC’)] can compound 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 Apex Court had observed as under:-
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.
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)
11. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Apex 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 offender 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)
12. The present case relates to the offence under Section 304A of the IPC where a person has died due to alleged negligence of the accused. Thus, while deciding whether proceedings relating to such an offence can be quashed on the basis of the settlement, it is necessary to consider whether it is probable that the presented facts would constitute gross negligence and whether the element of mens rea, which is required for the purpose of conviction, is present.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab: (2005) 6 SCC 1, while interpreting as to what constitutes a negligent act so as to constitute an offence under Section 304A of IPC held that gross negligence and an element of mens rea must be shown to exist. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
14. From a bare perusal of the chargesheet, it appears to be a case of accident. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused person had shown criminal negligence due to which the accidents occurred on regular intervals and despite that no measures were taken. The present accident seems to be a one-off incident. No evidence has been relied upon by the prosecution to show criminal negligence on part of the petitioner. Given the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased have already settled with the petitioner, it would be improbable to secure a conviction in the facts of the present case. The Court, thus, is of the view that the payment of compensation would serve the ends of justice.
15. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and 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.
16. In view of the above, FIR No. 74/2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of ₹4,00,000/- in the name of minor children of the deceased with the learned Registrar General of this Court. The said amount will be released along with interest accrued thereupon as and when the minor children turned major or upon an application filed by the respondent no.2 in case of any need.
17. Proof of payment of compensation to be submitted to the concerned SHO.
18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 22, 2025