Allowed

Naveen Yadav & Anr. v. the State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jul 2024CRL.M.C./2516/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes FIR No. 291/2017 concerning offences under Sections 323 and 365 IPC arising from an incident between neighbors. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings after finding the dispute amicably settled via a Compromise Deed and apology, noting that keeping the case alive would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 291/2017 and all consequential proceedings are quashed subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioners.

Naveen Yadav & Anr. Vs the State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2516/2024

¶4

NAVEEN YADAV & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Adv. Ankit Rana & Adv. Robin Singh along with P- 1 and P-2 in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) & ANR.

¶8

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State.

¶9

Insp. Naveen Kumar, PS Samaypur Badli. Adv. Tushar Rohmetra for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 04.07.2024 CRL.M.A. 9573/2024 (exemption from filing the certified copies of orders / annexures)

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 2516/2024

¶16

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.291/2017 dated 31.03.2017, for offences under Sections 323/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli (Rohini), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. The chargesheet has been filed in the present case.

¶17

CRL.M.C. 2516/2024

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 10:05:04

¶21

It is averred that Respondent No.2 used to work as a watchman from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. and on 30.03.2017 after completing his duty he was called by the petitioners asking about a vehicle, being Eicher Canter, which passed last night from the area where the Respondent No.2 work.

¶22

The FIR was registered alleging that on 30.3.2017 when the Respondent No.2 was called, he was taken by the petitioners to their godown where he was given beatings and was later taken to police station.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the alleged incident took place between the parties due to a misunderstanding and the parties are living in the same vicinity, and are known to each other.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the misunderstanding has since been resolved and the parties have settled the dispute.

¶25

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of a Compromise Deed dated 01.03.2024, of their own free will, without any coercion or force.

¶26

It is stated that all the terms of the Compromise Deed dated 01.03.2024 have been complied with. 10. The parties are present in person and are duly identified by the Investigating Officer 11. On being asked, the Respondent No.2 states that the matter has been amicably settled and he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR.

¶27

The petitioners, also states that they have since realized their mistake and have tendered unconditional apology. They submit that the parties being neighbors wish to live their future CRL.M.C. 2516/2024 Page 2 of 7

¶28

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 10:05:04

¶29

life peacefully.

¶30

Offence under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas offence under Section 365 of the IPC is noncompoundable.

¶31

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable 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 :-

¶32

“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:

¶33

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.

¶34

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:

CRL.M.C. 2516/2024

Page 3 of 7

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.”

¶43

(emphasis supplied)

¶44

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 :-

¶45

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be

CRL.M.C. 2516/2024

Page 4 of 7

summarised in the following propositions:

¶50

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶51

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is 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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

CRL.M.C. 2516/2024

¶57

Page 5 of 7

¶58

This is a digitally signed order.

¶59

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 10:05:04

¶60

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.

¶61

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.

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

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.”

¶65

(emphasis supplied)

¶66

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no

CRL.M.C. 2516/2024

Page 6 of 7

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 482 of the CrPC.

¶71

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case arising out of FIR No. 291/2017, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

¶72

In view of the above, FIR No. 291/2017 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of twelve weeks from today.

¶73

Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted with the concerned SHO.

¶74

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶75

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶76

JULY 4, 2024 “SK”

¶77

CRL.M.C. 2516/2024

¶78

Page 7 of 7

¶79

Naveen Yadav & Anr. v. the State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Yadav & Anr. v. the State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Vs Geetanjali & Ors.

Vikram Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Ajay Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Jai Bhagwann Dass Vs Ketan Sampat

Abhishek Kanojia Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Shahnawaj @ Sonu Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi