Md. Musaddik @ Mohd. Musaddik & Anr. v. State Govt NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./4385/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 4385/2025; High Court of Delhi; Sanjeev Narula, J.; order dated 08.07.2025; quashing of FIR No. 121/2023 P.S. Gokul Puri; Sections 356, 379, 34 IPC; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 CrPC inherent powers; non-compoundable offence; amicable settlement; Compromise Deed 03.09.2024; voluntary settlement without coercion; recovery of Rs. 2,500 and phone; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; ends of justice; petition allowed; FIR quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No. 121/2023 at P.S. Gokul Puri and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; parties to remain bound by the terms of settlement; petition disposed of along with pending application(s). ¶¶57

Md. Musaddik @ Mohd. Musaddik & Anr. Vs State Govt NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the offence under Section 356 IPC being non-compoundable.

¶¶25

Court's answer

In exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

Where the complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement and is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction becomes exceedingly remote; continuing the prosecution is futile and serves no worthwhile public interest.

¶¶52

Key takeaways

Although the offence under Section 356 IPC is not strictly 'in personam' and touches public concerns, given the complainant's categorical unwillingness to pursue the matter and confirmation of a voluntary, coercion-free settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an empty formality; this is an appropriate case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.ratio¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) by the accused seeking quashing of FIR No. 121/2023, P.S. Gokul Puri (Sections 356/379/34 IPC), alleging accosting of a delivery driver near Gokulpuri Bus Stand and snatching of his wallet containing Rs. 2,500. Following a Compromise Deed dated 3rd September, 2024, Respondent No. 2 (complainant), duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirmed before the Court that the settlement was voluntary and without coercion and that he had recovered Rs. 2,500 and his phone. Held, relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466: (i) inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) may be exercised to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences upon genuine settlement where no overarching public interest is affected; (ii) although Section 356 IPC is not strictly 'in personam', with the complainant unwilling to support the prosecution the prospect of conviction was exceedingly remote and continuance would be an empty formality. Petition allowed; FIR and all emanating proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement terms.

¶1

$~80

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4385/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19084/2025

¶4

MD. MUSADDIK @ MOHD. MUSADDIK & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Zaffar Alam, Advocate with Petitioners in person

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with SI Arvind Varma, ASI Sitaram, PS Gokulpuri Respondent No. 2 in person

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

08.07.2025

The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks quashing of FIR No. 121/2023 dated 24^th February, 2023³ under Sections 356, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴ , registered at P.S. Gokul Puri, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶14

Briefly, the case of the Prosecution against the Petitioners is that Respondent No. 2, a delivery driver by profession, lodged a complaint

¶15

1 “BNSS”

¶16

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶17

3 “impugned FIR”

¶18

4 “IPC”

¶19

CRL.M.C. 4385/2025

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 14/07/2025 at 13:01:14

¶23

alleging that while he was returning home and had reached near the BSES Office at Gokulpuri Bus Stand, the Petitioners, riding a motorcycle, allegedly accosted him and demanded money. It is further alleged that they snatched his wallet containing ₹2,500 and fled towards Bhajanpura. Consequently, based on the Complainant’s statement, the impugned FIR was registered.

¶24

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society. Pursuant thereto, the parties have executed a Compromise Deed dated 3^rd September, 2024. As per the terms of settlement, Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the impugned FIR against the Petitioners. A copy of the Settlement Deed has placed on record and perused by the Court.

¶25

Respondent No. 2, duly identified by the Investigating Officer unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings as he has settled all the disputes and differences with the Petitioners. He states that he has recovered the amount of INR 2,500/- and his phone from the Petitioners. He has confirmed that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The Petitioners have also joined the proceedings in person and are duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

¶26

The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 356 of IPC is non-compoundable, Section 379 of IPC is compoundable by the owner of the stolen property. It is well settled that in

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

CRL.M.C. 4385/2025

¶29

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 14/07/2025 at 13:01:14

¶30

the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.⁵ has held as follows:

¶31

“11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

¶32

12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent no.1 & 2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an an exercise in futility.”

¶33

[Emphasis added]

¶34

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. ,⁶ the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶35

“ 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

¶36

proceedings :

¶37

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

¶38

5 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶39

6 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

CRL.M.C. 4385/2025

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 14/07/2025 at 13:01:14

¶44

themselves . However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶45

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:

¶46

(i) ends of justice, or

¶47

(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 .

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.”

¶51

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶52

Although the offence under Section 356 of the IPC cannot be treated as strictly ‘ in personam’ , and it touches upon public concerns rather than being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also account for the practical realities of securing a conviction in the present case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where the complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction becomes exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest.

¶53

Page 4 of 5

¶54

CRL.M.C. 4385/2025

¶55

¶56

The Complainant in the present case has categorically expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed the settlement as voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Given this background, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and in view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds the present case to be an appropriate one for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

¶57

In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 121/2023, at P.S. Gokul Puri, and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶58

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s).

¶59

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶60

JULY 8, 2025/ab

¶61

Page 5 of 5

¶62

CRL.M.C. 4385/2025

¶63

Md. Musaddik @ Mohd. Musaddik & Anr. v. State Govt NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Musaddik @ Mohd. Musaddik & Anr. v. State Govt NCT of Delhi & 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

Virender Pal Singh & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sh. Yogesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Dalip Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ziaur Rahman Vs State NCT of Delhi

Manish Vs State NCT of Delhi

George Uchenna Nwadiegwu Vs Narcotics Control Bureau