Krishna Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025CRL.M.C./8058/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on settlement/amicable resolution; Section 528 BNSS 2023 petition; Section 365 IPC abduction complaint FIR No. 774/2017 PS-Mukherjee Nagar; chargesheet not filed; complainant and victim decline prosecution; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 para 58 applied; non-compoundable offence; exercise in futility; ends of justice; petitioner Krishna Pal Singh; respondent no.3 BSF Sub-Inspector; CRL.M.C. 8058/2025; Delhi High Court; decision date 14.11.2025; judge Vikas Mahajan.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 774/2017 under Section 365 IPC 1860 registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and of all proceedings emanating therefrom; petition alongwith pending application disposed of. ¶¶33

Krishna Pal Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 774/2017 under Section 365 IPC registered at PS-Mukherjee Nagar should be quashed on the ground that the parties have resolved their differences amicably, the chargesheet has not been filed, and the complainant and respondent no.3 do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings.

¶¶26

Court's answer

Given petitioner and respondent no.3 were known to each other while together preparing for competitive examination, and in view of the statements of the complainant and respondent no.3, continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would be an exercise in futility.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Applying the Supreme Court's Gian Singh observation (para 58) that quashing a criminal proceeding over a settled dispute, though the offences are not compoundable, is warranted when justice demands ending the dispute and restoring peace, this Court held it to be in the interest of justice that the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

The petition was allowed and FIR No. 774/2017 under Section 365 IPC 1860 registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, was quashed.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi HC (Vikas Mahajan, J), Order dated 14.11.2025 (CRL.M.C. 8058/2025, filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023): quashes FIR No. 774/2017 under Section 365 IPC registered at PS-Mukherjee Nagar, which arose from a 2017 complaint alleging abduction of respondent no.3 (complainant's daughter) involving petitioner Krishna Pal Singh. Chargesheet had never been filed (verified by APP on IO's instructions); petitioner and respondent no.3 were known to each other while preparing for competitive examination in July 2017; complainant attributed the FIR to a communication gap; respondent no.3 (now a BSF Sub-Inspector) declared she did not wish to prosecute. Court invoked Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 58) — quashing of settled disputes permissible even where offences are not compoundable, securing ends of justice — concluded continuation would be an exercise in futility, and allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom; petition and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 8058/2025

¶4

KRISHNA PAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranay Sharma and Mr. Vipin, Advocates with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Nitesh Singh, PSMukherjee Nagar. Respondents in person.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 14.11.2025

¶11

CRL.M.A. 33672/2025

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

Application stands disposed of.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 8058/2025 and CRL.M.A. 33671/2025

¶15

The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 774/2017 under Section 365 IPC registered at PS-Mukherjee Nagar on the ground that parties have resolved their differences amicably.

¶16

Petitioner, as well as, respondents, are present in Court and they have been identified by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, as well as, by SI Nitesh Singh, PS Mukherjee Nagar.

¶17

The case set out in the present petition is that the respondent no.2/complainant had made a complaint with regard to abduction of respondent no.3 (complainant’s daughter) on the basis of which present FIR

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 17/11/2025 at 12:33:29

¶20

came to be registered.

¶21

It is stated that the petitioner and respondent no.3 were known to each other and both preparing for competitive examination in July, 2017. However, complainant without verifying the fact got the complaint registered.

¶22

Mr. Pranay Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that till date the chargesheet has not been filed, which fact is also verified by Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned APP for State, on instructions from the IO, who is present in Court.

¶23

He further submits that petitioner is pursuing Ph.D. whereas respondent no.3 is now Sub-Inspector in BSF posted in Jammu and Kashmir.

¶24

Complainant who is present in Court, on a query posed by the Court, states that he was residing in village and on account of some communication gap between him and his daughter/respondent no.3, the complaint was made by him which led to the registration of FIR.

¶25

Respondent no.3 is also present in Court. On being queried by the Court, she also states, she does not want to prosecute the criminal proceedings.

¶26

In view of the fact that petitioner as well as respondent no.3 were known to each other, as they were together preparing for competitive examination and regard being had to the statement made by the complainant as well as respondent no.3, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in continuation of criminal proceedings and it will be an exercise in futility.

¶27

At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of the

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 17/11/2025 at 12:33:29

¶30

Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303: (SCC p. 340, para 58)

¶31

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.”

¶32

It is, thus, in the interest of justice the present FIR and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

¶33

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 774/2017 under Section 365 IPC 1860 registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.

¶34

The petition alongwith pending application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶35

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶36

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶37

NOVEMBER 14, 2025/ jg

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 17/11/2025 at 12:33:29

Krishna Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & 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

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Gnctd & Anr.

Bharat Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Avinash Kumar Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Siddharth Panghal Vs Pooja Khatri and Anr.

Om Prakash Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Chettinad Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences Vs Pharmacy Council of India