Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 16, 2025
RAMESH VERMA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sumit Gaba, Adv. Petitioners in person
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State SI Manisha, PS- Rani
Bagh ASI Narvir, Traffic Mr. Mohd. Irshad & Mr. Prashant Malik, Advs. for
R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 642/2022 dated 22.04.2022, registered at Police Station Rani Bagh, for offences under Sections 323/341/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and all the proceedings emanating therefrom. The Chargesheet has already been filed.
2. The Respondent No. 3 and 2 are husband and wife, while the Petitioners are their neighbours.
3. It is alleged that on 21.04.2022, a dispute arose between the parties over the car parking spot, which escalated into a physical altercation, during which the wife of the complainant/ Respondent No. 3 was pushed. Thereafter, the Petitioners allegedly threw stones at the complainant and his house. This led to the registration of the present FIR.
4. It is pointed out that the same incident also led to registration of a cross-FIR being FIR No. 640/2022 at the instance of the Petitioner No. 1 under Sections 323/341 of the IPC, at Police Station Rani Bagh, against Respondent No. 3.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties are neighbours and had a minor altercation which led to filing of the above complaints not only by the complainant but also by the petitioners. He further states that the parties were good friends and had cordial relations otherwise, and the above incident is merely a result of a misunderstanding between the parties.
6. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi by way of Settlement dated 06.09.2025, on their own free will, without any coercion, undue influence, pressure or threat.
7. The parties are present in person in Court and they have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
8. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on being asked, state that a minor altercation/quarrel between the parties, which escalated, led to filing of the above FIRs. It is further stated that they have amicably settled their disputes, are satisfied with the apology tendered by the petitioners and do not wish to pursue any proceeding arising out of the present FIR and have no objection if the same is quashed, as they want to live peacefully in future.
9. The petitioners further undertake that they will not harass Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or their family members in any manner whatsoever. The Petitioners are bound by the said undertaking.
10. Offences under Sections 323/341 of the IPC are compoundable in nature and offences under Sections 354 of the IPC are non-compoundable.
11. 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 under the Code 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:-
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.
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.
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)
12. 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:-
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)
13. In the present case, a quarrel between the parties, regarding the parking of a car by Respondent No. 3, led to registration of two FIRs, out of the same incident. The existence of such crosscases, both arising out of the same neighbourhood discord, demonstrates that the criminal law machinery was invoked with more passion than prudence. This Court finds it necessary to reiterate that the criminal justice system cannot be used as a tool for settling personal scores. Lodging FIRs with inflated allegations, particularly invoking serious sections without adequate basis, not only undermines the purpose of criminal law but leads to prolonged hostility, avoidable litigation, and wastage of judicial time. Such practice, unfortunately not uncommon, is strongly deprecated.
14. In the present case, the parties are acquaintances/neighbours and have decided to live peacefully in future and have undertaken not to indulge in any such conduct in future. It is also stated that the Respondents have no remaining grievance against the petitioners and they do not wish to remain involved in any criminal litigation regarding the said incident. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction, when Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not wish to pursue the case. In such circumstances, continuance of the proceedings, despite such settlement, would only cause harassment and heart burn amongst the parties, who are neighbours and otherwise intend to live cordially and peacefully in the same locality.
15. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, 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 considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
16. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.
17. In view of the above, FIR No. 642/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- by petitioners and ₹10,000/- by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of three months from date.
18. Proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO.
19. The present petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.
20. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 16, 2025 “SS”