Suresh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

c. Cases of dispute between old partners or business concerns with dealings over a long period which are predominantly civil and are given or acquire a criminal dimension but the parties are essentially seeking a redressal of their financial or commercial claim. d. Minor offences as under Section 279, IPC may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non- compoundable is Section 506 (II), IPC, which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under Section 506 IPC in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Sections 147 and 148, IPC, more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No. 17 of 1999 (Section 3) has made Sections 506(II) IPC, 147 IPC and 148, IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under Section 320, Cr.P.C. e. The offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. Offences committed by Public Servants purporting to act in that capacity as also offences against public servant while the victims are acting in the discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable. Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter-VII (relating to army, navy and air force) must remain non-compoundable. f. That as a broad guideline the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair…..

58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.”

8. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts for quashing the proceedings based on settlements. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:

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. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

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.”

9. Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to quash FIRs or criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 sets limits to the High Court's power, emphasizing that it should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases and laid down specific circumstances where FIR can be quashed. It was held that quashing is justified where allegations do not disclose an offence, are absurd or mala fide, or where there exists a legal bar. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) it was clarified that quashing on the basis of compromise is permissible in private or matrimonial disputes, but not in heinous or serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, corruption, or offences having serious impact on society, where the Court cannot quash merely because parties have settled. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 is extraordinary and must balance individual justice with societal interest.

10. In the present case, the victim was kicked on his private parts by the petitioner and was also robbed Rs. 15,000-20,000/-. The said incident took place on 18.11.2024 and the victim died on 30.11.2024. The link between the injuries caused and the cause of death is yet not known inasmuchas the investigation is still pending and the chargesheet has yet not been filed. The allegations are grave and serious in nature and the offence under section 309(6) BNS is punishable with imprisonment upto life or with RI of upto 10 years alongwith fine. The commission of such offences create deep impact on the society and allowing the quashing of such an offence would send wrong message. Merely because the parties are known to each other and have mutually executed a MoU does not ipso facto warrant the quashing of FIR. The rationale is that the Court must safeguard public interest and the rule of law, ensuring that serious offences are not trivialized by private settlements.

11. In view of the cumulative facts, I do not deem it fit to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto at this stage.

12. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J August 21, 2025 SK/AK