Delhi High Court
Virender Singh Bidhuri vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 28 July, 2026
$~98
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28th July, 2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 2131/2026 & CRL.M.A. 21322-21323/2026
VIRENDER SINGH BIDHURI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Raj Pal Kasana, Mr.
Shailendra Singh, Mr. Dishant Yadav
and Mr. Abhishek Baisoya, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.)
with Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Pavitra
Dixit, Advocates for State/R-1
Mr. Asif Zamir, Mr. Bharat and Mr. R.
Radha, Advocates for R-2 along with
R-2
Mr. Ratan Lal, ACP/OPS South-East
and SI Vivek Gautam, PS Badarpur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 0386/2025 registered at Police
Station Badar Pur for commission of offences under Sections
115/126(2)/74/78/324(2)/351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding Sections 323/341/354/354D/426/506 IPC) along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of settlement
arrived at between the parties. Later on, Section 2(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also
added in the FIR.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA W.P.(CRL) 2131/2026 1
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:07
2. FIR in question was registered on the basis of report lodged by
respondent No. 2 in which she claimed that she came in contact of petitioner
when he had approached their hospital in relation to grant of some discount to
a patient. According to her, he started talking to her on phone and thereafter
started harassing her. He even threatened to eliminate her husband and
children. She revealed that on the date of incident, when she was returning
home, petitioner blocked her vehicle with his car and threatened to eliminate
her and uttered casteist remarks. She was also assaulted in the middle of the
road, abused and touched inappropriately.
3. Investigation is, reportedly, complete and according to prosecution,
petitioner is not coming forward and, therefore, coercive process has been
issued by the learned Trial Court.
4. He is, however, present today in the Court.
5. Respondent No. 2 is present in person and she has been duly identified
by her counsel as well as investigation ACP Ratan Lal. She states that she
has entered into settlement voluntarily and without any force. She submits
that such settlement has taken place with the intervention of respectable
persons, elders and well-wishers and that no pressure or coercion and undue
pressure is involved. She submits that petitioner had apologized to her and
also to her family and has assured that there would not be any such act or
incident from his side. She submits that on the basis of such apology
tendered by petitioner, she is no longer interested to pursue her complaint.
6. When the matter was taken up on the last date i.e. 22.07.2026, learned
Addl. Standing Counsel had prayed for short adjournment as he also wanted
to confirm about the aforesaid settlement between the parties.
7. Such fact has now been verified.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA W.P.(CRL) 2131/2026 2
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:07
8. A status report has been filed.
9. Along with status report, there is also additional statement of
respondent No. 2 in which she had been asked specific questions with respect
to settlement. She revealed to the concerned investigating officer that since
the other side apologized, she was willing to settle the matter. She also
claimed that there was no pressure upon her and that settlement was with her
own sweet will and volition.
10. Copy of such status report and statement, which is shown during the
course of arguments, is taken on record.
11. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no
prohibition or embargo in quashing a complaint of the present nature. He
refers to Sukhdev Sharma and Anr. Vs. The State and Anr: Crl. M.C.
7144/2022 (DoD: 09.02.2024) wherein, this Court, while considering the
factum of amicable settlement in a complaint filed under Section 2(1)(r)(s) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
quashed the proceedings on the basis of the settlement and while quashing,
reference was made to one Supreme Court judgment. Relevant portion of
the aforesaid order is extracted as under:-
“……..
4. The respondent no.2, who is personally present in Court and has been
duly identified by the Investigating Officer (IO), reaffirms the
abovementioned settlement and states that he has settled all the disputes
with the petitioners of his own free will and without any coercion. The
respondent no.2 submits that wants to live in peace with the petitioners, his
neighbours, and prays that the subject FIR be quashed.
5. I have perused the contents of the FIR and also the settlement between the
parties.
6. In Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635, the Supreme Court,
while quashing an FIR filed under the SC/ST Act, in the set of facts whereSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA W.P.(CRL) 2131/2026 3
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:07
the parties were neighbours and had entered into a mutual settlement, has
held as under:
“10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem
to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in
Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531, wherein, a
two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V.
Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J.) was confronted with an
identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been
clarified that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 320CrPC
cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of
inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under
Section 482CrPC. It was further held that the touchstone for
exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or
Section 482CrPC, would be to do complete justice. Therefore,
this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having
given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that
the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a
settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of
their respective constitutional/inherent powers.
xxxxx
16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of
special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be
extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been
specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and
harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the
depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures,
the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected
to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. The courts
have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted
keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards
enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a
twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these
vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and
rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.
17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the
offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is
primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence
has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or
where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an
abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to
quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering aSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA W.P.(CRL) 2131/2026 4
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:07
prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if
the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act
would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in
question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is
covered under a “special statute” would not refrain this Court
or the High Court, from exercising their espective powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC.”
7. Guided by the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its
judgment in Ramawatar (Supra), and keeping in view the fact that parties
are neighbours and the respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue his
complaint any further, as also the Settlement arrived at between the parties,
I find that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the
proceedings of the present FIR as the chances of its success will be rather
minuscule and it would rather create further acrimony between the parties
and will be an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 493/2021 registered with
Police Station: Pul Prahladpur, South-East District, New Delhi under
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, and all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed.”
12. The situation herein is also, precisely, same and similar.
13. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal
case pending and to withhold the permission to quash the FIR particularly
when the respondent No. 2 has accepted the apology tendered by the
petitioner and is not inclined to pursue the case.
14. Petitioner is present in Court and assures that he shall not indulge in
such act or conduct in future.
15. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed
appropriate to quash the instant FIR. Consequently, to secure the ends of
justice, FIR No. 0386/2025 registered at Police Station Badar Pur for
commission of offences under Sections 115/126(2)/74/78/324(2)/351(2) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA W.P.(CRL) 2131/2026 5
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:07
323/341/354/354D/426/506 IPC), along with all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, is quashed subject to petitioner’s depositing cost of Rs.
50,000/- with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks
from today. Let original affidavits of the parties and original Memorandum
of Understanding be deposited with the concerned SHO/IO within further two
weeks so that these become part of record.
16. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
17. Other pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JULY 28, 2026/dr/sk
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA W.P.(CRL) 2131/2026 6
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:07
