Syed Kaif Hassan Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Syed Kaif Hassan Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: FIR No. 74/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending applications (including CRL.M.A. 12098/2025 and the exemption application CRL.M.A. 12099/2025) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 74/2025 registered at Police Station Shaheen Bagh for offences under Sections 281/125A BNS, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement reached between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

The present accident appears to be one of the incidents in which conviction of the petitioner does not appear probable, given that the parties have already settled the matter.

Ratio / Principle

It is well settled that the High Court, exercising its powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, guided by the Apex Court parameters (Narinder Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir).

Key takeaways

The offence under Section 281 of the BNS is noncompoundable, whereas the offence under Section 125A of the BNS is compoundable.obiter¶24
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.ratio¶65
This is a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi HC (New Delhi) single-judge order — Amit Mahajan, J. — CRL.M.C. 2698/2025, decided 16.05.2025. Syed Kaif Hassan sought quashing of FIR No. 74/2025 (date printed as 09.03.2015), Police Station Shaheen Bagh, for offences under Sections 281/125A BNS, and all consequential proceedings, arising from an incident of 08.03.2025 in which the complainant (Respondent No. 2) was hit by the petitioner's motorcycle driven rashly/negligently and sustained injuries. The parties executed a Settlement Deed dated 05.04.2025 of free will, the petitioner having paid all medical claims/bills of Respondent No. 2 as compensation; Respondent No. 2, identified through video-conference by the Investigating Officer, stated he did not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings and had no objection to quashing. Noting that the offence under S.281 BNS is noncompoundable and under S.125A BNS compoundable, and relying on the Apex Court parameters in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court held that conviction did not appear probable, that continuance would abuse the process of Court, and that it was a fit case for discretionary jurisdiction under S.528 BNSS (erstwhile S.482 CrPC); the FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed, the petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

$~70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CRL.M.C. 2698/2025

SYED KAIF HASSAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. MB Tariq (through VC), Mr. Nadeem Khan, Mr. Azhar Ali & Ms. Kirti Shivhare, Advs. with petitioner (through VC)

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State SI Ankur Kumar, PSShaheen Bagh Complainant (through VC)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 16.05.2025

CRL.M.A. 12099/2025 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2698/2025 & CRL.M.A. 12098/2025

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 74/2025 dated 09.03.2015 registered at Police Station Shaheen Bagh for offences under Sections 281/125A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNS ’) including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.

It is alleged that on 08.03.2025 at about 09:30 PM, the

This is a digitally signed order. complainant got hit by the petitioner who was driving his 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 20/05/2025 at 14:51:23 motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the

Page 1 of 6

CRL.M.C. 2698/2025

complainant sustained injuries.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of a Settlement Deed dated 05.04.2025, on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence.

In terms of the settlement, the petitioner had paid all the medical claims/ medical bills of Respondent No. 2 as compensation.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are present through video-conference and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 8. Respondent No. 2, on being asked, states that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR, and have no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 9. Offence under Section 281 of the BNS is noncompoundable whereas the offence under Section 125A of the BNS is compoundable. 10. 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 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 :-

This is a digitally signed order.

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in

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 20/05/2025 at 14:51:23 sum up and lay down the following principles

Page 2 of 6

CRL.M.C. 2698/2025

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.

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 This is a digitally signed order. having overwhelmingly and predominantly The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. civil character, particularly those arising out The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2025 at 14:51:23 of commercial transactions or arising out of

This is a digitally signed order.

Page 3 of 6

CRL.M.C. 2698/2025

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)

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 :-

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

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.

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.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482,

This is a digitally signed order. the High Court must evaluate whether the ends 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 20/05/2025 at 14:51:23 of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

Page 4 of 6

CRL.M.C. 2698/2025

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 This is a digitally signed order. the criminal proceeding if in view of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. compromise between the disputants, the The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2025 at 14:51:23 possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would

This is a digitally signed order.

Page 5 of 6

CRL.M.C. 2698/2025

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)

The present accident seems to be one of the incidents for which the conviction of the petitioner does not appear to be probable given the fact that the parties have already settled the matter.

Therefore, this Court is of the view 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.

In view of the above, FIR No. 74/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 16. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

MAY 16, 2025 “SS”

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 20/05/2025 at 14:51:23

Page 6 of 6

CRL.M.C. 2698/2025