Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th November, 2025
MAMRAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S. Sisodia, Adv. Petitioner in person
DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State SI Naresh Kumar, PS-
Bhalswa Dairy Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 1038/2021 dated 29.12.2021, registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, for offences under Sections 323/354B/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case under Sections 323/354B/509 of the IPC.
3. The parties are stated to be neighbours, who had a physical altercation on 29.12.2021. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 received certain injuries, simple in nature, which led to the registration of the above-mentioned FIR.
4. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes, with the intervention of respectable members of society and their respective family members, by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.12.2024, on their own free will, without any fear, pressure, coercion, or undue influence.
5. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are present in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
6. The complainant/ Respondent No. 2 states that she has amicably resolved the dispute with the petitioner and has no objection to quashing of the above FIR, which is duly supported by her No-Objection Affidavit. She further states that she has since married and moved to Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the pendency of the proceedings is causing unnecessary harassment to the parties.
7. The petitioner undertakes to pay a sum of ₹50,000/- as compensation to the victim, within a period of four weeks from today, on account of the harassment faced by her. The complainant submits that she is satisfied with the same and since she has moved on in life, she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR.
8. Offences under Sections 323/509 of the IPC are compoundable, whereas offences under Sections 354 of the IPC are 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:-
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:-
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 wellbeing 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 matter, the complainant 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 and continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn specially when the complainant has moved on in life and has forgiven 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. In view of the above, FIR No. 1038/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
14. The petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of ₹50,000/as compensation to the victim within a period of four weeks. Let the proof of payment of compensation to the victim be submitted to the concerned IO.
15. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
16. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 17, 2025 “SS”