Mr Naveen Lalu and Anr. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Nov 2025CRL.M.C./6613/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court quashes 2013 FIR (Sections 392/384/506/34 IPC; chargesheet 392/384/394/506/34 IPC) after amicable settlement, invoking Section 528 BNSS / erstwhile Section 482 CrPC for non-compoundable offences per Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; cost of ₹30,000 imposed; Amit Mahajan, J.; CRL.M.C. 6613/2025, decided 18.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: FIR No. 481/2013 and all consequential proceedings quashed, subject to payment of total cost of ₹30,000/- by the petitioners to the Delhi Police Welfare Society within twelve weeks; proof of deposit to be submitted with the concerned SHO; pending applications disposed of. ¶¶67

Mr Naveen Lalu and Anr. Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 481/2013 dated 21.10.2013 registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla under Sections 392/384/506/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties. +2 more

¶¶5

Court's answer

Given the long pendency of the 2013 FIR (trial still not commenced), the victim's appearance before the Court stating he does not wish to pursue proceedings arising out of the FIR, and his satisfaction with the compensation amount making conviction unlikely, the present is a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶¶63

Ratio / Principle

The High Court, while exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), can quash offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, guided by the parameters laid down in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

Since the victim appeared before the Court, stated he does not wish to pursue proceedings arising out of the FIR and is satisfied with the compensation amount, conviction of the petitioners is unlikely.ratio¶¶58
The other offences pointed out by the State also took place almost a decade back and it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been involved in any other case in the last almost one decade; hence the dispute arising out of the subject FIR is put to rest despite involvement in other cases.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.M.C. 6613/2025 (Delhi HC, Amit Mahajan, J., 18.11.2025): Petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 481/2013 (PS Sarai Rohilla) under Sections 392/384/506/34 IPC, with chargesheet under Sections 392/384/394/506/34 IPC, allowed on the basis of Settlement Agreement dated 08.08.2025. Offence under Section 506 IPC is compoundable; Sections 392/384/394 IPC are non-compoundable, but the Court, relying on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, exercised inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) to quash non-compoundable offences on compromise. Grounds: FIR of 2013 with trial still not commenced; victim/complainant appeared, declared satisfaction with compensation and unwillingness to pursue proceedings, making conviction unlikely; other cases against petitioner also nearly a decade old with no recent involvement. FIR and consequential proceedings quashed subject to payment of ₹30,000/- cost to Delhi Police Welfare Society within twelve weeks; proof of deposit to be furnished to concerned SHO.

¶1

$~39 * %	IN THE HIGH COURT OF *Date of D*	DELHI AT NEW DELHI *ecision: November 18, 2025*
+	CRL.M.C. 6613/2025, C CRL.M.A. 27838/2025	RL.M.A. 27837/2025 &
	MR NAVEEN LALU AND ANR Through:	.....Petitioners Mr. Nikhil Joshi, Adv. for P1 Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. for P2 (through VC) Petitioners (through VC)
	versus
	STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. Through:	.....Respondents Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State
		Mr. Swapnil Jain, Adv. for R2 (through VC)

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶4

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶5

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 481/2013 dated 21.10.2013, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, for offence under Sections 392/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint made by Respondent No. 2.

¶6

Chargesheet has been filed in the present case under Sections 392/384/394/506/34 of the IPC.

¶7

Briefly stated, it is alleged that on 21.10.2013,

¶8

Signature Not Verified3. Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:2 8.11.2025 CRL.M.C. 6613/2025 13:08:16

¶9

Page 1 of 8

¶10

Respondent No.2 was playing cricket in an empty ground in Railway Colony Kishanganj, where one of the accused approached Respondent No.2 asking him to pay money if he wished to play in the said ground. Upon Respondent No.2 refusing to pay him, one of the accused persons started harassing and punching Respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the brother of Respondent No.2, beat him up and forcibly took ₹2000/- from him. Two other accused persons joined him and gave beatings to Respondent No.2 and his brother.

¶11

During the course of investigation, upon identification by Respondent No. 2, the petitioners were arrested.

¶12

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties by way of Settlement Agreement dated 08.08.2025, out of their own free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

¶13

The complainant/ Respondent No. 2 was exempted from personal appearance by order dated 17.09.2025. 7. The petitioners are present through video-conference and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 8. This Court, on the first date of hearing, that is 17.09.2025, noted the statement made by the complainant that he is satisfied with the compensation amount and does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same is quashed.

¶14

This Court had also noted the submission made on behalf

¶15

of the petitioner that the parties are known to each other and have

¶16

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:2 8.11.2025 CRL.M.C. 6613/2025 13:08:16

¶17

Page 2 of 8

¶18

since resolved their differences.

¶19

Offence under Section 506 of the IPC is compoundable in nature whereas the offences under Sections 392/384/394 of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature. 11. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya 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 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶20

“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:

¶21

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.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:2 8.11.2025 CRL.M.C. 6613/2025 13:08:16

¶24

Page 3 of 8

¶25

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:

¶26

(i) ends of justice, or

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:2 8.11.2025 CRL.M.C. 6613/2025 13:08:16

¶34

Page 4 of 8

¶35

and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

¶36

(emphasis supplied)

¶37

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 :-

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:2 8.11.2025 CRL.M.C. 6613/2025 13:08:16

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:2 8.11.2025 CRL.M.C. 6613/2025 13:08:16

¶54

Page 6 of 8

¶55

possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶56

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.”

¶57

(emphasis supplied)

¶58

The FIR was registered long back in the year 2013 and it is informed that the trial has still not commenced. Once the victim has appeared before this Court and stated that he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and is satisfied with the compensation amount, the conviction of the petitioners is also unlikely.

¶59

It is pointed out that the petitioner is involved in other cases as well, however, this Court considers it apposite to put to rest the dispute arising out of the subject FIR considering that the other offences which have been pointed out by the State, also took place almost a decade back and it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner in last almost one decade is involved in any other case.

¶60

Considering the long pendency of the trial and the unlikelihood of the same being concluded in near future coupled with the fact that the victim had appeared before this Court and

¶61

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:2 8.11.2025 CRL.M.C. 6613/2025 13:08:16

¶62

Page 7 of 8

¶63

stated that he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR, in the opinion of this Court, the present is a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶64

However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

¶65

In view of the above, FIR No. 481/2013 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of total cost of ₹30,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of twelve weeks from today.

¶66