Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th December, 2025
DR. DAVINDERA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar and Mr. Manohar Naagar, Advs.
Both the petitioners in person.
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State
Vishvendra Singh, PS Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
Mr. Mukesh Sharma and Mr. Varun Mittal, Advs. for the complainant.
R-2 / Complainant in person.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 66/2016 dated 06.02.2016, registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar PH-1, for offences under Sections 354/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The present FIR was registered on the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging that the petitioners tried to insult and outrage the modesty of the complainant.
2. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case and the petitioners have been kept in Column 12 of the chargesheet.
3. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes by way of Settlement Deed dated 06.10.2025, out of their free will without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.
4. The parties are present in person in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
5. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that she has entered into settlement without any pressure or coercion. 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.
6. Offence under Section 509 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offence under Section 354 of the IPC is noncompoundable.
7. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) 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 Supreme Court had observed as under:- “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 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)
8. 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:-
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)
9. In the present case, Respondent No.2 has stated that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case. Moreover, the police on not finding any evidence has also kept the petitioner in column 12 of the chargesheet.
10. 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 BNSS.
11. However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case arising out of the present FIR, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.
12. In view of the above, FIR No. 66/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹20,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Martyrs’ Fund, within a period of six weeks from date.
13. Proof of deposit of cost shall be furnished to the concerned SHO.
14. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 11, 2025 ‘KDK’