Delhi High Court
Ms Meera Devi & Ors vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 17 March, 2026
$~89 & 90
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17th March, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1642/2025
MS MEERA DEVI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State with SI Shubhanshu, PS
Kalyanpuri.
Ms. Riya Goel, Advocate for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 with
respondent Nos.2 and 3 in person
+ CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
SHEIKH MOHD & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Riya Goel, Advocate with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State with SI Shubhanshu, PS
Kalyanpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
1. Both these petitions, being connected, have been taken up together.
2. There are two cross-FIRs i.e. FIR No.432/2014 and FIR No.433/2014
dated 24.05.2014, registered at P.S. Kalyanpuri. Both the abovesaid FIRs
have been registered for commission of offences under Sections 308/34 IPC.
3. In Crl.M.C. 1642/2025, there are three accused persons i.e. Meera, Raj
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 1
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
Kumar and Sunder Lal and injuries were received by one-Sheikh Mohammad
and Gulshan.
4. In cross-case i.e. CRL.M.C. 8137/2025, there are in all nine accused
persons i.e. Sheikh Mohammad, Meena, Shahrukh Khan, Gulshan, Sharmila,
Musraf Khan, Zareena @ Zina, Sunder Lal and Salman Khan whereas the
injuries were received by five persons i.e. Meera Devi, Sunder Lal, Jitender
@ Jeetu, Tara and Kirodi.
5. As per bare averments appearing in FIRs in question, there was discord
between the two groups and during scuffle on the relevant date, bricks were
hurled and rod, lathi, palta, sword, etc. were used. The scuffle between the
two parties was for the reason that Sunita (daughter of Ms. Tara) had,
voluntarily, gone with Nek Mohammad (son of his neighbor-Mr. Sheikh
Mohammad).
6. It is apprised that parties have been able to bury their differences and
now there is marriage between the abovesaid two persons i.e. Ms. Sunita and
Mr. Nek Mohammad with the consent of family members and such couple is
even blessed with a child.
7. Charge-sheets in both the aforesaid matters have been filed and charges
have also been framed under Sections 308/34 IPC and both the cases are at the
stage of prosecution evidence.
8. Both the sides have entered into settlement and have agreed to give
their respective ‘no objection’ to the quashing of FIRs in question. Copy of
such Compromise Deed has also been placed on record. As per the broad
terms of settlement, accused Sheikh Mohammad has agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.40,000/- to injured Meena.
9. The petitioners and injured, in both the matters, are present. Respective
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 2
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
counsel are also present. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) is present and
identifies the parties/ injured.
10. They all have reiterated the terms of settlement and submit that since
the matter has been amicably settled between them, they are no longer
interested in pursuing their respective FIRs. All the injured also state that they
have already recovered from the injuries in question. They claim that they
have entered into settlement voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion.
A sum of Rs.40,000/- has also been paid to injured Meena during course of
hearing of the matters.
11. The affidavits of respondents in both the cases, giving their ‘no
objection’ to the quashing of respective FIRs have also been placed on record
and reliance is placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10
SCC 303.
12. Fact remains that the incident is of the year 2014 and parties have
already undergone agony of trial for more than a decade.
13. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with
criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Even otherwise, the
MLCs which have been placed on record does not reveal any serious injury.
Reference be made to Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court had observed that proceedings,
even in non-compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement
provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in
continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote
and bleak. Reference be made to the following observations made in
Antonnette Promilla Fernanadez v. State NCT of Delhi and Another 2026
SCC OnLine Del 809:-
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 3
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
“15. It is now well settled that, even in the case of
non-compoundable offences, the High Court may exercise inherent
powers, recognised by Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of
the BNSS, to quash proceedings based on a compromise between
the parties. However, the aforesaid power is discretionary, and
certain principles have been laid down, which guide the Court in
adjudicating an application of this nature.
16. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab referred to several earlier judgments, including some
concerning Section 307 of the IPC, and summarised the law as
follows:
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has
to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or
FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot
be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact
on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and the offender in relation to the offences under special
statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing
for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private orSignature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 4
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount
to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall
be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”
17. Three later judgments of the Supreme Court specifically deal
with proceedings under Section 307 of the IPC:
a. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, after referring to the
judgment in Gian Singh, and various judgments dealing with
Section 307, the Court distilled the following legal principles:
“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.
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 5
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
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 him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are
to be generally treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the
High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained,
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 6
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts
of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in
respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be
the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there
is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of
conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can
refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties
is going to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of offence and
the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may
be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that
at this stage the investigation is still on and even the
charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases
where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start
or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can
show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but
after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete
or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the
stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain
from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code,
as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to
decide the case finally on merits and to come to a
conclusion as to whether the offence under
Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those
cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the
High Court, mere compromise between the parties would
not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of
the offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 7
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found
guilty of such a crime.”
b. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the same
principles have been reiterated.
c. In the recent judgment in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, these principles were applied to set aside a
prosecution under Section 307.
18. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case,
upon an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to
exercise the inherent powers of this Court to quash the
proceedings.”
14. Reference be also made to the judgment in Mohd. Rashid & Ors. V.
The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. (in CRL.M.C.8182/2025; DoD
18.11.2025), wherein this Court quashed the proceedings arising out of
Sections 308/34 IPC after considering the nature of the offence and amicable
settlement between the parties.
15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid and in order to facilitate both the sides in
maintaining and restoring cordiality, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in
exercise of the inherent powers of the Court.
16. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed
appropriate to quash both the FIR.
17. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR Nos.432/2014 and
433/2014, registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri, for commission of offences
under Sections 308/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, quashed. Original Compromise Deed and original affidavits of
petitioners and respondent No.2, copies of which have been filed with the
present petition, shall be submitted before the learned Trial Court on or before
the next date of hearing so that these become part of Trial Court Record.
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 8
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
18. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
19. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 17, 2026
st/sa
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1642/2025 & 9
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 8137/2025
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:19.03.2026
10:05:29
