Allowed¶60

Dr. Ganga Singh v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC19 May 2025CRL.M.C./3265/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on amicable settlement; non-compoundable offences (Sections 468/471 IPC) quashed in inherent jurisdiction; Section 528 BNSS / erstwhile Section 482 CrPC; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; family dispute between mother and daughter; affidavit and Joint Registrar (Judicial) statements verifying voluntary settlement; FIR No. 321/2020, P.S. Neb Sarai; CRL.M.C. 3265/2025; Delhi High Court; Justice Amit Mahajan; decided 19.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 321/2020 dated 27.06.2020 registered at Police Station Neb Sarai and of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ¶60

Dr. Ganga Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 321/2020 dated 27.06.2020 registered at Police Station Neb Sarai and of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 321/2020 dated 27.06.2020 registered at Police Station Neb Sarai for offences under Sections 406/420/468/471/120B IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, ought to be quashed on the ground that the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 stands amicably settled. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties, who are closely related (daughter and mother), have amicably settled, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive; continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court, and this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

Offence under Sections 406/420 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas offences under Sections 468/471 of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature.

¶20

Key takeaways

The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), can quash even non-compoundable offences on the ground of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, guided by the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir.ratio¶20
FIR No. 321/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, and the petition is allowed in those terms.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J.) allowed CRL.M.C. 3265/2025 and quashed FIR No. 321/2020 dated 27.06.2020, P.S. Neb Sarai (Sections 406/420/468/471/120B IPC), together with all consequential proceedings, the dispute between the petitioner (daughter) and Respondent No. 2 (mother/complainant) having been amicably settled — confirmed by Respondent No. 2's affidavit dated 17.04.2025 and joint voluntary statements before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 08.05.2025. Although offences under Sections 468/471 IPC are non-compoundable, the Court, exercising its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) and applying the parameters laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, held that a closely related family dispute resolved by genuine compromise need not be kept alive where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶1

$~80

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3265/2025

¶4

DR. GANGA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishabh, Adv. along with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State. SI Arun Kumar, PS DIU/SD. Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, Adv. along with R-2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 19.05.2025 1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 321/2020 dated 27.06.2020 registered at Police Station Neb Sarai for offences under Sections 406/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶10

The FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint given by Respondent No. 2 who alleged that the petitioner, who is her daughter, wanted to illegally occupy the houses belonging to Respondent No. 2.

¶11

It is further alleged that petitioner earlier had committed theft in Respondent No. 2’s house pursuant to which another FIR was registered on 20.08.2019.

¶12

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the

¶13

CRL.M.C. 3265/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 10/06/2025 at 11:39:56

¶17

petitioner submits that petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are related to each other being daughter and mother. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 17.04.2025 in this regard.

¶18

On 08.05.2025, petitioner and Respondent No. 2 appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and gave voluntary statements that the dispute between them has been amicably settled without any force, coercion, undue influence and pressure.

¶19

The learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) noted that the settlement has been arrived between the parties without any force, coercion, undue influence and pressure and the settlement deed has been signed with wish and will.

¶20

The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are present in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 8. Respondent No.2, on being asked, states that she has settled the dispute and does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the FIR are quashed. 9. Offence under Sections 406/420 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Sections 468/471 of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature. 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 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 CRL.M.C. 3265/2025 Page 2 of 6

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

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 10/06/2025 at 11:39:56

¶23

SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶24

“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:

¶25

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.

¶26

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:

¶27

(i) ends of justice, or

¶28

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

CRL.M.C. 3265/2025

¶33

¶34

compromise between the victim and the offender.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

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 :-

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

CRL.M.C. 3265/2025

¶44

¶45

offence is non-compoundable.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an

¶52

CRL.M.C. 3265/2025

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

¶55

essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶56

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

¶57

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.”

¶58

(emphasis supplied)

¶59

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties, who are closely related to each other have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels 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.

¶60

In view of the above, FIR No. 321/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 14. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶61

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶62

MAY 19, 2025 “SK”

¶63

Page 6 of 6

¶64

CRL.M.C. 3265/2025

¶65

Dr. Ganga Singh v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ganga Singh v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tufani Yadav Vs New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Syed Kaif Hassan Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shyam Singh Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Lata Yadav Vs Shivakriti Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Vikas Juyal Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.