Sh Mohit Tyagi v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi High Court · 26 Sep 2025 · 2025:DHC:8702
Ravinder Dudeja
CRL.M.C. 6999/2025
2025:DHC:8702
criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under IPC and Arms Act based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 6999/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 ,,,,,,,,,, CRL.M.C. 6999/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29431/2025 EXEMPTION
SH MOHIT TYAGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Chauhan, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Mr. Amit Varma, Mr. Gaurav Gulshan, Mr. Vikas Sharma, Mr. Yogesh Aggarwal, Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Tripathi, Advocates.
Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. … Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP
WITH
ASI Vikram Singh, PS-Karawal
Nagar.
Mr. Omvir Singh Sisodia, Advocate for complainant.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 630/2014, dated 23.07.2014, registered at P.S Karawal Nagar, Delhi under Sections 336/34 IPC & Section 27/25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

2. As per allegations made in the FIR, on 22.07.2014 petitioner and other accused fired shots at the office of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 was present inside the office who went upstairs wherein he was subjected to abuses by petitioner. Chargesheet has since been filed under sections 336/34 IPC & Section 27/25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the petitioner.

3. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Deed/ Compromise Agreement dated 25.08.2025, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure P-4.

4. Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer ASI Vikram Singh, from PS Karawal Nagar.

5. Respondent no. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and he has no objection if the FIR No. 630/2014 is quashed against the petitioner.

6. In view of the aforesaid settlement, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that there was no injured even due to gunshot and thus, has no objection if the present FIR No. 630/2014 is quashed.

7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

8. The aforesaid view has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466.

9. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,

10. The Court feels that continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the disputes between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings, as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

11. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

12. The petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 630/2014, dated 23.07.2014, registered at P.S KARAWAL NAGAR, Delhi under section 336/34 IPC & Section 27/25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed, subject to petitioner depositing cost of Rs. 50,000/- with Delhi State Legal Services Authority, within a period of one month.

13. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.