Delhi High Court – Orders
Sh. Pankaj Pandey@ Hari Om Narayan … vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 16 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 8732/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36448/2025
SH. PANKAJ PANDEY@
HARI OM NARAYAN PANDEY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Vats, Mr. Smarth
Sharan Jha and Ms. Bharti,
Advocates with Petitioner in
person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI
Priyanka, P.S. S.P. Badli.
Ms. Yashika Arora and Ms. Diksha
Bansal, Advocates for R2 with R2
(VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 16.03.2026
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding
to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC“]),
seeking quashing of FIR No. 650/2017 dated 27.07.2017, registered at
Police Station Samaipur Badli, District Rohini, New Delhi, under
Sections 354A/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“],
alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground
that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
CRL.M.C. 8732/2025 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 18/03/2026 at 21:03:03
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Yashika Arora,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –
complainant.
3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
4. The allegations, as borne out from the impugned FIR, are that the
petitioner, who was the nephew of the neighbour of respondent No. 2,
had been following her for the past one year. On 27.07.2017, at around
9:25 AM, the petitioner came to her office, touched her shoulder, and
intimidated her. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was
filed under Sections 354A/354D/506/509 of the IPC.
5. The parties have entered since into a settlement, as recorded in a
Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.10.2025 [“MoU”]. In light of
the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
6. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned
counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is
present through video conference, and is identified by her learned counsel
and the Investigating Officer.
7. The MoU records that the disputes have been amicably resolved.
Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court through video conference and
is represented by learned counsel, has also stated that the allegations
under Sections 354A and 354D of the IPC, arose out of a
misunderstanding, and that she does not wish to pursue the same.
8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. The
affidavit/No-Objection Certificate of respondent No. 2 has also been
CRL.M.C. 8732/2025 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 18/03/2026 at 21:03:03
placed on record, wherein it is stated that she has resolved the disputes
with the petitioner of her own free will, and has no objection to the
impugned FIR being quashed.
9. The Investigating Officer states that the parties are no longer
neighbours. Learned counsel for the parties confirm this position.
10. Although the offences under Sections 354A and 354D of the IPC
are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in
certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under
Section 482 of CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS], can quash
criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences,
on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the
complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely
affected.
11. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], held as follows:
“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. No doubt, crimes
are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of
the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he
and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has
been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In
respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other
offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity,
the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legalCRL.M.C. 8732/2025 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 18/03/2026 at 21:03:03
sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile,
commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc.
or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and
the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been
made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of
its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by
not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not
exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-
fast category can be prescribed.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6
SCC 466], the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High
Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the
proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:
“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
CRL.M.C. 8732/2025 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 18/03/2026 at 21:03:03
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
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
12. In the present case, the allegations in the impugned FIR, though
serious, appear to arise out of a neighbourhood misunderstanding, and do
not implicate any larger public interest or grave criminality. Applying the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is pertinent to note that
respondent No. 2 has affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement
before the Court. In these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings is unlikely to result in a conviction and would serve no
useful purpose, while merely adding to the burden on the justice system,
and resulting in unnecessary consumption of public resources.
13. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR
No. 650/2017 dated 27.07.2017, registered at Police Station Samaipur
Badli, District Rohini, New Delhi, under Sections 354A/506/509 of the
IPC, alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed. However, having regard to the circumstances giving rise to the
impugned FIR, the petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/-
CRL.M.C. 8732/2025 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 18/03/2026 at 21:03:03
with the Delhi High Court Bar Association [A/C No. 15530110179338,
IFSC No. UCBA0001553, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch: Delhi High
Court], within two weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance shall be
filed within two weeks thereafter.
14. The petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of in
terms of the aforesaid.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 16, 2026
‘Bhupi/KA’/
CRL.M.C. 8732/2025 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 18/03/2026 at 21:03:03