Veer Singh and Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

¶1

$~87

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 5897/2025, CRL.M.A. 25174-25175/2025

¶4

VEER SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Md. Asif and Mr. Sushant Pal, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aman Durga, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with Mr. Dharm Singh, SI, PSMaidan Garhi.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

%

25.08.2025

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. 0239/2022 under Sections 323/354/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ , registered at P.S. Maidan Garhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶13

Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution against the Petitioners is that on 30^th May, 2022, at around 8:55 AM, the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 was sitting outside her residence at House No. 228 B, Maidan Garhi, after her husband had left for work, when Petitioner No. 1 (her brother-in-

¶14

1 “BNSS”

¶15

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶16

3 “IPC”

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

CRL.M.C. 5897/2025

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 02/09/2025 at 12:29:23

¶21

law) and Petitioner No. 2 (her younger brother-in-law) arrived at her residence. Following a verbal altercation, Petitioner No. 1 allegedly hurled filthy abuses at her, and upon objection, slapped her, touched her chest with inappropriate intention, and threatened her with dire consequences. Petitioner No. 2 also threatened the Complainant and physically twisted her hand. Subsequently, Petitioners No. 6 and 3 (her sisters-in-law) as well as Petitioner No. 4 (another female relative) allegedly assaulted her. Petitioner No. 5 (Complainant’s mother in law further abused and threatened to kill her. Subsequently, the Complainant called the police emergency number and proceeded to the Trauma Centre for medical treatment, where she sustained injuries. After receiving medical attention, she reported the incident to the police station and lodged a written complaint. Based on the complaint and MLC, offences under Sections 323/354/509/506/34 of IPC were found to be made out, and FIR was registered accordingly. Thereafter, following investigation and the Complainant’s statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C, a chargesheet was filed wherein Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were charge-sheeted under Sections 323/354/354B/509/506/34 of IPC, whereas Petitioners No. 3 to 6 under Sections 323/354-B/509/506/34 of IPC.

¶22

The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondent No. 2 has amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioners and has decided not to pursue the impugned FIR against them. Pursuant to this settlement, a Compromise Deed dated 10^th July, 2025, was executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2.

¶23

A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

CRL.M.C. 5897/2025

¶26

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 02/09/2025 at 12:29:23

¶27

Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioners and has agreed to voluntarily give her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Affidavit of Respondent No. 2 has been placed on record to this effect.

¶28

Respondent No. 2, who has appeared before the Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer, has unequivocally stated that she does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. She confirms that her 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 impugned FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

¶29

The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Section 354/354-B of IPC are non-compoundable, Sections 323/506/509 of IPC are compoundable in certain cases. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of 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.⁴ has held as follows:

¶30

“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

¶31

4 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

CRL.M.C. 5897/2025

¶34

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 02/09/2025 at 12:29:23

¶35

Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

¶36

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.”

¶37

[Emphasis added]

¶38

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. ,⁵ the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶39

“ 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 :

¶40

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.

¶41

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:

¶42

(i) ends of justice, or

¶43

(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 .

¶44

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 having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of

¶45

5 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶46

Page 4 of 6

¶47

CRL.M.C. 5897/2025

¶48

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 02/09/2025 at 12:29:23

¶49

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 354/354-B of IPC cannot be treated as strictly ‘ in personam’ , and they touch 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. The Complainant in the present case has categorically expressed her 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.

¶53

In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing No. 0239/2022, as well as all consequential

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

CRL.M.C. 5897/2025

¶56

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 02/09/2025 at 12:29:23

¶57

proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶58

However, given that the state machinery was put to use, the ends of justice will be served if the Petitioners are put to certain cost. Accordingly, the Petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of INR 3,000/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund. Proof of payment to be furnished to the concerned SHO.

¶59

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s).

¶60

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶61

AUGUST 25, 2025 nk

¶62

Page 6 of 6

¶63

CRL.M.C. 5897/2025

¶64

This is a digitally signed order.

¶65

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 02/09/2025 at 12:29:23

Veer Singh and Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Singh and Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

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

Suyash Kansal Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ms Middle East Travel and Tours Thr. Its Proprietor Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shailendra Tiwari Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Mohan Gupta Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Faizan & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Shahid & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.