Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 24, 2025
ABDUL ABBAS @ ABBAS BILAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Siwach, Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Mr. Arjun Baliyan and Mr. Prince Grover, Advs.
Petitioner in person.
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State
Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-2
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 372/2020 dated 18.08.2020, registered at Police Station Karol Bagh, for offences under Sections 354D/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No. 2 alleging that the petitioner used to stalk her, despite being warned by Respondent No.2 many times. Allegedly, the petitioner had also abused Respondent No.2 using filthy language and threatened to kill her.
3. It is stated that chargesheet has been filed in the present case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were in a relationship and the FIR was registered after they broke up. He submits that the petitioner has unconditionally apologised for his conduct and he undertakes to not indulge in similar activities in the future.
5. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.12.2025, on their own free will, without any fraud, force, pressure, undue influence or coercion.
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 she is satisfied with the apology tendered by the petitioner and she has no remaining grievance. She states that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed.
8. Offences under Sections 506/509 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Section 354D of the IPC is non-compoundable.
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 the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
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:-
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)
11. Although the offence under Section 354D of the IPC is serious in nature, in the present matter, Respondent No.2 has stated that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in conviction when the complainant does not wish to pursue the case. Continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn, especially when the victim has moved on in life and stated that she has no remaining grievance against the petitioner.
12. 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.
13. However, considering that 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. 372/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of total cost of ₹50,000/- by the petitioner, out of which, ₹25,000/- is to be deposited with the Delhi Police Martyrs’ Fund and ₹25,000/- is to be deposited with Arya Kanya Sadan, 1488 Pataudi House, Daryaganj, New Delhi for the benefit of destitute girls, within a period of eight weeks.
15. Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO.
16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 24, 2025/‘KDK’