Delhi High Court – Orders
Amar Bahadur Pal vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 21 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1913/2025 & CRL.M.A. 8607/2025
AMAR BAHADUR PAL .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Parul Agarwal, Advocate
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: SI K.P. Singh, PS New Ashok Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 21.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 59/2021 dated 9th March,
2021, registered under Sections 308 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
18603, registered at P.S. New Ashok Nagar and all proceedings emanating
therefrom. Pursuant to the investigation in the case, the chargesheet has been
filed against the Petitioner.
2. The impugned FIR was lodged on a complaint filed by Respondent
No. 2, the elder brother of the Petitioner, alleging that on 19 th March, 2021,
at around 12PM, due to a dispute over the shared shutter of the shops owned
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
CRL.M.C. 1913/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 22/07/2025 at 22:12:35
by him and the Petitioner respectively, the Petitioner came outside his shop
and started abusing him, threatening to kill him. Allegedly, when the
Complainant protested, the Petitioner beat him up with a stick, hitting him
on the head multiple times. He stated that due to this, his head started to
bleed profusely, and he was taken to the Safdarjung Hospital in an
ambulance, where he was given 8 stiches. Based on the Complainant’s
statement, the subject FIR was registered on 09th March, 2021, under
Sections 308 and 506 of the IPC.
3. The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends, family
and other respectable members of society, Respondents No. 2 has amicably
resolved the dispute with the Petitioner and has decided not to pursue the
present FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, a Settlement Deed
dated 16th December, 2024, was executed between the Petitioner and
Respondent No. 2. A copy of the Settlement Deed has been placed on record
and perused by the Court.
4. As per the terms of the Settlement, Respondent No. 2 has resolved all
disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed on certain terms
regarding constructing separate shutters and stairs in the common area
shared between the shops owned by both the parties. In light of the
settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to voluntarily give his no objection
to the quashing of the subject FIR.
5. In view of the settlement, the Complainant, who has appeared before
the Court and is identified by his counsel, has unequivocally stated that he
does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He has confirmed that his
decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 1913/2025 Page 2 of 6
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 22/07/2025 at 22:12:35
influence or coercion. The Petitioner has also joined the proceedings in
person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the
amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the
subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. It is noted
that in the present case even though Section 308 of IPC has been invoked,
the injuries on the Complainant, as per the MLC No. 21351 annexed with
the present petition, has been noted as ‘simple’. While the offence under
Section 308 of IPC is non-compoundable, Section 506 of IPC is
compoundable by the person intimidated. It is well settled that in the
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528
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:
“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 Court to prevent continuation of
unnecessary judicial process.
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.”
[Emphasis added]
4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
CRL.M.C. 1913/2025 Page 3 of 6
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 22/07/2025 at 22:12:35
7. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 the
Supreme Court held as follows:
“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:
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.
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:
(i) ends of justice, or
(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.
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
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.
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
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 1913/2025 Page 4 of 6
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 22/07/2025 at 22:12:35
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. Although the offence under Section 308 of the IPC cannot be treated
as strictly ‘in personam’, and it touches 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 is the elder brother of the Petitioner. He
has categorically expressed his 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.
9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
59/2021 under Sections 308 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18606,
registered at P.S. New Ashok Nagar and all proceedings emanating
therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to the Petitioner depositing a cost of
6
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 1913/2025 Page 5 of 6
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 22/07/2025 at 22:12:35
₹10,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund. Proof of such payment shall
be furnished to the concerned Station House Officer.
11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 21, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 1913/2025 Page 6 of 6
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 22/07/2025 at 22:12:35
