Suman & Ors vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 March, 2026

March 30, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Suman & Ors vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 March, 2026

1. The present petitions are filed 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
two cross-FIRs, being FIR No. 329/2019 [subject matter of CRL.M.C.
9258/2025] dated 20.09.2019 under Sections
323/341/354/354B/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“]
and FIR No. 330/2019 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 7/2026] dated

SPONSORED

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 1 of 10

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 30/03/2026 at 20:56:57
20.09.2019 under Sections 323/324/452/354/354B/506/509/34 of the IPC
and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [“SC/ST Act”]. Both FIRs are
registered at Police Station Neb Sarai, District South, Delhi. The petitions
are founded on a compromise arrived at between the parties, and the
respective complainants in the two FIRs have been arrayed as respondent
No. 2 in both the petitions. Respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 9258/2025
[complainant in FIR No. 329/2019] is arrayed as a petitioner in
CRL.M.C. 7/2026, i.e. an accused in FIR No. 330/2019, and respondent
No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 7/2026 [complainant in FIR No. 330/2019] is arrayed
as a petitioner in CRL.M.C. 9258/2025 [accused in FIR No. 329/2019].

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State in both petitions. Mr. M.
Shakeel, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 in
CRL.M.C. 9258/2025. Notice is also accepted by Mr. Mohan Shyam
Arya, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C.
7/2026.

3. The petitions are taken up for hearing together with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties.

4. The parties are neighbours residing in the same building in E-
Block, Jawahar Park, Khanpur Ext., Delhi, and the dispute arose due to
non-payment of maintenance charges of the building.

5. In CRL.M.C. 9258/2025, FIR No. 329/2019 was registered upon
the complaint of respondent No. 2 therein, alleging harassment by their
neighbours, being Suman and Mohan Shyam Arya, over maintenance
charges in the building. She alleged threats, abuse, and assault, including

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 2 of 10

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 30/03/2026 at 20:56:57
an incident on 19.09.2019, wherein she and her husband were allegedly
beaten by the neighbours and their associates, causing injuries. Upon
completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed.

6. In CRL.M.C. 5815/2025, FIR No. 132/2009 was registered upon
the complaint of respondent No. 2 therein, alleging assault, tearing her
clothes, and abusing, including use of casteist slurs by her neighbours and
their associates on 19.09.2019. Upon completion of investigation, a
chargesheet was filed.

7. The parties seek quashing of the FIRs on the ground that they have
now decided to bury the hatchet. To this effect, the parties have settled
their disputes amicably by way of a Memorandum of Understanding
dated 18.08.2025, without any monetary consideration. Affidavits of the
respective complainants have been placed on record, affirming the
voluntary nature of the settlement and conveying their no objection to the
quashing of the impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings.

8. All parties are present in Court and are identified by the
Investigating Officer and by their learned counsel. The parties have
confirmed before the Court that they have settled their disputes, and do
not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against each other. In
FIR No. 330/2019 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 7/2026], there were three
injured persons, but only the complainant has been a party. The other two
injured persons, i.e. Mr. Banwari Lal and Ms. Tara Devi [petitioner Nos.
2 and 5 in CRL.M.C. 9258/2025 respectively], however, are present in
Court, and state that they also have no objection to the quashing of the
said FIR. Learned counsel for the parties state that all allegations made
against each other were born out of a misunderstanding, owing to trivial

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 3 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances,
the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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.

10. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has
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 legal 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

1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 4 of 10

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 30/03/2026 at 20:56:57
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
2
prescribed.”

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, 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
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

2
Emphasis supplied.

(2014) 6 SCC 466.

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 5 of 10

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 30/03/2026 at 20:56:57
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.”4

11. The Supreme Court, in its three-Judge Bench decision in
Ramawatar v. State of M.P.5, has clearly held that the High Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), is competent to quash
criminal proceedings even in cases arising under “special statutes”. The
Supreme Court specifically clarified that this power extends to offences
under the SC/ST Act as well, and held as follows:

“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.

Emphasis supplied.

(2022) 13 SCC 635 [hereinafter, “Ramawatar”].

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 6 of 10

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 30/03/2026 at 20:56:57

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 a 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 respective powers under Article 142 of
the Constitution or Section 482CrPC.

18. Adverting to the case in hand, we note that the present appellant
has been charged and convicted under the unamended Section 3(1)(x) of
the SC/ST Act [ Section 3(1)(x) of the Act stands substituted by Act 1 of
2016 w.e.f. 26-1-2016.] , which was as follows:

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.–(1) Whoever, not being a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe–

***

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
view;”

19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the
courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-
victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will
and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since
members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the
weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion,
and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the
courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to
the accused party. What factors the courts should consider, would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

20. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case in light of the aforestated principles, as well as having
meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke
the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant criminal proceedings
with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties
before us. We say so for the reasons that:

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 7 of 10

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 30/03/2026 at 20:56:57
20.1. Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act
is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with
the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the
record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute
between the parties. The case of the appellant, from the very beginning,
has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of
frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the
deprecated incident was the aforestated civil/property dispute.

Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be
incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly
private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even
though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the
present case.

20.2. Secondly, the offence in question, for which the appellant has
been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim
of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from
atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that
although the appellant may not belong to the same caste as the
complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of
the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position
when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of
segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their quarters only
to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the appellant and the
complainant lived in adjoining houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the
socio-economic status of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the
overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the
present proceedings are quashed.

20.3. Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994.
Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported
compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties.
The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other
occurrence that would lead us to believe that the appellant is either a
repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired.

20.4. Fourthly, the complainant has, on her own free will, without any
compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present
criminal proceedings against the accused.

20.5. Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the
trial against the appellant had been concluded.

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 8 of 10

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 30/03/2026 at 20:56:57
20.6. Sixthly, the appellant and the complainant parties are residents
of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We
have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily
settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed
wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to
6
effectuate the present settlement.”

12. Applying the principles to the present case, it appears to me to be a
fit case in which the inherent power of this Court can be used to quash the
cross-FIRs. The present matters arise out of a neighbourhood dispute
between two families who were residing in the same building in E-Block,
Jawahar Park, Khanpur Ext., Delhi. The matters have remained pending
for over six years. I am informed by learned counsel for the parties that
the parties continue to reside in the same locality. The allegations under
Section 354/354B and of IPC, and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act
appear to have arisen out of a neighbourhood misunderstanding between
them, having its genesis in non-payment of maintenance charges of the
building. The factors considered by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 20.1
to 20.6 of Ramawatar apply in the present case also, to the extent that the
disputes appear to arise from personal acrimony, parties continue to be
neighbours of similar socio-economic standing, considerable time has
lapsed without further incident, and the settlement has been affirmed as
voluntary. The injuries suffered by the parties as per the MLCs were also
simple in nature. I am satisfied that no heinous criminality is involved in
the present case. Quashing of the FIRs, in these circumstances, would
permit the parties to live in peace and harmony, rather than compounding
the animosity. As the parties have amicably settled their disputes, it is
also unlikely that further proceedings would result in convictions.

Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 9 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

13. The petitions are, therefore, allowed, and all proceedings
emanating from FIR No. 329/2019 [subject matter of CRL.M.C.
9258/2025] dated 20.09.2019 under Sections
323/341/354/354B/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“] at
P.S. Neb Sarai and FIR No. 330/2019 [subject matter of CRL.M.C.
7/2026] dated 20.09.2019 under Sections
323/324/452/354/354B/506/509/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the
SC/ST Act at P.S. Neb Sarai, are hereby quashed.

14. The petitions, alongwith the pending applications, accordingly
stand disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 25, 2026
SV/AD/

CRL.M.C. 9258/2025& 7/2026 Page 10 of 10

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 30/03/2026 at 20:56:57

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Suman & Ors vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 March, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders