Allowed¶64

Narender v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./4557/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on settlement/compromise; noncompoundable offence under Section 110 BNS quashed via Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile s.482 CrPC); reliance on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641 parameters; complainant declined to pursue case; cost of Rs. 10,000/- to Delhi Police Welfare Society; CRL.M.C. 4557/2025 allowed by Delhi High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No. 335/2025 dated 26.06.2025 (Police Station Kalkaji) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner to be deposited with Delhi Police Welfare Society within four weeks, proof of deposit to be submitted to the concerned SHO. ¶64

Narender Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 335/2025 dated 26.06.2025 registered at Police Station Kalkaji for offences under Sections 110/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, can be quashed. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

FIR No. 335/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with Delhi Police Welfare Society within four weeks, with proof of deposit to be submitted to the concerned SHO.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

The offence under Section 110 of the BNS is noncompoundable.

¶21

Key takeaways

The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, guided by the Apex Court's parameters.ratio¶22
Given the complainant's stated unwillingness to pursue the proceedings arising out of the FIR, it is unlikely in the peculiar circumstances of the case that the FIR will result in conviction.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Amit Mahajan, J.) allowed CRL.M.C. 4557/2025 and quashed FIR No. 335/2025 dated 26.06.2025 of Police Station Kalkaji under Sections 110/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — a noncompoundable offence — along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of an amicable settlement (Settlement Deed dated 27.06.2025) between the petitioner and the complainant (Respondent No. 2), who stated he did not wish to pursue the proceedings and had no objection to quashing against all persons involved. Exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) and guided by the parameters in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court found conviction unlikely given the complainant's stance, held continuation abusive of the process of Court, and conditioned quashing on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Delhi Police Welfare Society within four weeks.

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4557/2025

¶4

NARENDER .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Hinu Mahajan, Adv. Petitioner in person

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State SI Vikrant, PS- Kalkaji R2 in person

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 14.07.2025

¶9

CRL.M.A. 19837/2025 (for exemption)

¶10

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 4557/2025

¶13

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 335/2025 dated 26.06.2025, registered at Police Station Kalkaji, for offences under Sections 110/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNS ’) including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶14

It is alleged that on 26.06.2025, when the complainant was speaking to his friends, a black car stopped near him and four men came out of the same and started beating him. It is alleged that on 21.05.2025, a fight had occurred between the complainant and the said persons at the same spot. The complainant alleges that this incident took place with the involvement of the

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

CRL.M.C. 4557/2025

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 23/07/2025 at 12:24:16

¶19

petitioner as the accused persons had stated his name during the altercation, which led to registration of the above-mentioned FIR.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties are known to each other and the scuffle arose due to a petty misunderstanding. He states that the parties have since resolved their dispute. 6. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes with the intervention of well-wishers and family and they have also entered into a Settlement Deed dated 27.06.2025 of their own free will, without any fear or pressure or coercion. 7. The parties are present in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 8. The petitioner apologises for his conduct and undertakes to not indulge in similar activities in the future. 9. Respondent No. 2, on being asked, states that he is satisfied with the apology. He states that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the FIR and he has no objections if the same are quashed against all persons involved in the scuffle.

¶21

Offence under Section 110 of the BNS is noncompoundable.

¶22

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

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

CRL.M.C. 4557/2025

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 23/07/2025 at 12:24:16

¶27

of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶28

“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:

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

CRL.M.C. 4557/2025

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 23/07/2025 at 12:24:16

¶38

commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶39

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.”

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

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 :-

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

Page 4 of 6

¶48

CRL.M.C. 4557/2025

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 23/07/2025 at 12:24:16

¶51

prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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”

¶56

(emphasis supplied)

¶57

In the present matter, the complainant has stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the subject FIR. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in conviction when the complainant does not wish to pursue the case. It is also pointed out that the

¶58

Page 5 of 6

¶59

CRL.M.C. 4557/2025

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

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 23/07/2025 at 12:24:16

¶62

parties are known to each other. It is also relevant to note that the parties entered into the settlement on the very next day after the incident. While the identity of the persons involved in the altercation has not yet been ascertained, in the opinion of this Court, considering that the complainant has asserted that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings, continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn.

¶63

Keeping in view nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties 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 considered opinion that it is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction can be exercised and the proceedings are quashed.

¶64

In view of the above, FIR No. 335/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of four weeks from the date.

¶65

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

¶66

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶67

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶68

JULY 14, 2025 “SS”

¶69

Page 6 of 6

¶70

CRL.M.C. 4557/2025

¶71

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 23/07/2025 at 12:24:16

Narender v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narender v. State of 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

Rajo Devi Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Lalit Kumar Vs Asha

Yogesh@Yuvi Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

State Vs Vikas @ Billa

Prem Chand Vs State and Others

Brm Lease and Credit Private Limited Vs Krishan Pal Sharma