Allowed¶35

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

Quashing of FIR – Inherent powers

Delhi HC4 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./6283/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court (Ravinder Dudeja, J., 04.09.2025) allows CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & 6283/2025 under S.528 BNSS and quashes cross-FIRs No. 325/2020 (ss. 354B/509/34 IPC) and No. 317/2020 (ss. 354/506/323 IPC), PS Subzi Mandi, on Compromise Deed dated 26.10.2024 between relatives; relies on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675; non-compoundable offences quashed on settlement; abuse of process; cost Rs. 5,000/- each to DSLSA; accused Daleep Gupta deceased, proceedings abated.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR Nos. 325/2020 and 317/2020 (PS Subzi Mandi) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, subject to petitioners in both cases depositing cost of Rs. 5,000/- each with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within one month; pending applications disposed of. ¶35

Pankaj Jain & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Dehi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR Nos. 325/2020 and 317/2020, both lodged at Police Station Subzi Mandi, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed on the basis of the compromise/settlement between the parties. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Both FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 325/2020 dated 21.09.2020 under Sections 354B/509/34 IPC and FIR No. 317/2020 dated 17.09.2020 under Sections 354/506/323 IPC, Police Station Subzi Mandi, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the petitioners in both cases depositing cost of Rs. 5,000/- each with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within one month.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Since the parties are relatives and the dispute arose out of misunderstanding and was settled amicably out of their own free will without coercion, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law; quashing would promote cordiality rather than rekindle hostility.

¶30

Key takeaways

The inherent powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, and the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties (relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana).ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — Inherent powers — S. 528 BNSS — Cross-FIRs — Compromise settlement. The High Court of Delhi allowed two petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and quashed FIR No. 325/2020 dated 21.09.2020 (Sections 354B/509/34 IPC) and FIR No. 317/2020 dated 17.09.2020 (Sections 354/506/323 IPC), both at Police Station Subzi Mandi, together with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of a Compromise Deed/Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.10.2024. Both FIRs arose from the same incident between relatives and represented version and counter-version of a verbal and physical assault; charge-sheets had been filed under Sections 354/509/506/323/34 IPC. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Court held that the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement, and that continuation of proceedings in a private dispute settled without coercion would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of process. Quashing was made conditional on deposit of Rs. 5,000/- each as cost with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within one month. Proceedings qua deceased accused Daleep Gupta (FIR No. 317/2020) had already abated. Petitions allowed and disposed of; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~ 49 & 53

¶2

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

¶3

% Date of decision: 04.09.2025

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26445/2025 EXEMPTION, CRL.M.A. 26446/2025 DELAY

¶5

HIMANSHU GUPTA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. S.S. Chhillar, Mr. S.P. Anand, Advs. with all petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE (STATE OF DELHI) AND ANR

¶8

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI Vikash Fageria, PS Subzi Mandi. Ms. Mansha Gupta, Ms. Radhika Gupta, Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Rao, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶9

¶10

CRL.M.C. 6283/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26569/2025EXEMPTION PANKAJ JAIN & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Mansha Gupta, Ms. Radhika Gupta, Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Rao, Advs. with P-1, P-2, P-3 in person and P-4 through VC. versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP, with SI Vikash Fageria, PS Subzi Mandi. Mr. S.S. Chhillar, Mr. S.P. Anand, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & 6283/2025 Page 1 of 5

¶12

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 10:40:21

¶13

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

¶14

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶15

These are petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of two FIRs i.e. one bearing No. 325/2020 dated 21.09.2020, for the alleged offences under Sections 354B/509/34 of IPC and the second bearing no. 317/2020 dated 17.09.2020 under Sections 354/506/323 of IPC, both lodged at Police Station Subzi Mandi, and all other consequential proceedings arising there fromon the basis of a compromise.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and private respondents in both petitions submit that there was a serious misunderstanding on the part of their clients that led to lodging of FIR and cross FIR, as above. The parties have now amicably settled the matter vide Compromise Deed/ Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.10.2024 and hence the two petitions seeking quashing of the two FIRs. Copy of the Compromise Deed/Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.10.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-5.

¶17

Both FIRs, ibid, arising out of the same incident on the same date, represent a version and counter-version of the dispute. The matter pertains to verbal and physical assault by tearing clothes and

¶18

CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & 6283/2025 Page 2 of 5

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 10:40:21

¶20

issuing threats. Chargehsheets have since been filed under sections 354/509/506/323/34 IPC.

¶21

All Parties are physically present before the Court except Petitioner no. 4 namely Riya Gupta in case FIR no. 317/2020 who has entered her appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Vikash Fageria, from PS Subzi Mandi. It has been submitted that one of the accused in FIR no. 317/2020 namely Daleep Gupta has expired during the pendency of the trial and proceedings qua him stand abetted.

¶22

Both parties confirm that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and they have no objection if the FIR Nos. 325/2020 and 317/2020 are quashed against the Petitioners. They further submit that the dispute is private in nature.

¶23

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the FIR Nos. 325/2020 and 317/2020 are quashed.

¶24

In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon’ble Supreme Courthas recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

¶25

"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

¶26

CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & 6283/2025 Page 3 of 5

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 10:40:21

¶28

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."

¶29

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.

¶30

The parties are relatives of each other and dispute arose out of misunderstanding as stated, thus dispute is essentially private in nature. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law. Not quashing the criminal proceedings would rather rekindle hostility, whereas quashing the same would promote cordiality and bonhomie between the parties.

¶31

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.

¶32

CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & 6283/2025 Page 4 of 5

¶33

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 10:40:21

¶34

The petitions are allowed, and both the FIRs i.e. one bearing Nos. 325/2020 dated 21.09.2020, under Sections 354B/509/34 of IPC and the second bearing no. 317/2020 dated 17.09.2020 under Sections 354/506/323 of IPC, Police Station Subzi Mandi, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed subject to petitioners in both cases depositing cost of Rs. 5,000/- each with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month.

¶35

Petitions is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶36

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

¶37

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J September 04, 2025 SK

¶38

CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & 6283/2025 Page 5 of 5

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 8.09.2025 10:40:21

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Jain & Ors. v. State of NCT of Dehi & 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

Dr. Harish Kumar G R Vs Dr. Archana Nimesh & Anr.

Ranjeet Singh@ Soni @ Baaz Vs State Ofnct of Delhi

Yogender Chandolia Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Himanshu Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi

Manish Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Amandeep Singh Dhall Vs Directorate of Enforcement