Allowed

Jazib Jafri v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC8 Sept 2025W.P.(CRL)/2842/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court of Delhi allowed a writ petition and criminal miscellaneous applications seeking quashing of an FIR. The court found an amicable settlement and discharged the costs burden, ultimately quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 321/2015 and all consequential proceedings quashed; Petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,000 with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within one month.

Jazib Jafri Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~69

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Date of decision: 08.09.2025

¶4

- W.P.(CRL)2842/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26666/2025 EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRANSLATED TYPED COPIES ETC. CRL.M.A. 26667/2025 DELAY 100 DAYS IN RE-FILING OF PETITION.

¶5

JAZIB JAFRI .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Ishpreet Singh, Mr. Piyush Singhal, Ms. Khushi Thawal, Advs. along with petitioner through VC.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATEOF NCT OF DELHI &ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel with Ms. Priyam Aggarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. WSI Vineesha, from PS Sarojini Nagar

¶9

Mr. Vinay & Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advs. for R-2 along with R-2 through VC.

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT(ORAL)

¶11

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶12

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 321/2015, dated 05.05.2015, registered at P.S Sarojini Nagar, Delhi under Sections 354D IPC and all

¶13

W.P.(CRL)2842/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 11:15:04

¶15

proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶16

As per allegations made in the FIR, Complainant alleged harassment for over a year by an unknown person calling from multiple numbers, posing as different professionals, sending indecent photos, asking inappropriate personal questions and troubling through calls, emails, and links. Chargesheet has since been filed under sections 354D IPC against the petitioner. It is submitted that charge has been framed under Section 354D IPC by the Ld. Trial Court.

¶17

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Compromise Deed dated 25.01.2024. Copy of the Compromise Deed dated 25.01.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-3.

¶18

Parties have entered their appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer WSI Vineesha, from PS Sarojini Nagar.

¶19

Respondent no. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and she has no objection if the FIR No. 321/2015 is quashed against the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 321/2015 is quashed.

¶21

W.P.(CRL)2842/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 11:15:04

¶23

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:-

¶24

"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."

¶25

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, (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶26

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.

¶27

The petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 321/2015, dated 05.05.2015, registered at P.S Sarojini Nagar, Delhi under section 354D IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating

¶28

W.P.(CRL)2842/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶29

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 11:15:04

¶30

therefrom is hereby quashed, subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month.

¶31

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶32

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

¶33

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶34

September 08, 2025
SK

¶35

W.P.(CRL)2842/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶36

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 11:15:04

Jazib Jafri v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jazib Jafri v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Ram Garg Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Manish Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Abhishek Vs State and Ors.

Ajay Kashyap & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ajay Khurana and Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Braham Prakash Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ms Riza Puri Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Himanshu Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi

Manish Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pankaj Jain & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Dehi & Anr.

Rajshree Anand and Others Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Dlhei and Anr.

Aditya Vikram Singh Sethi Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.