Delhi High Court – Orders
Sagar & Anr vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 20 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 757/2026 and CRL.M.A. 7228/2026
SAGAR & ANR.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay Datt Gahtori, Ms. Kusum
Shah and Ms. Pushpa Chhibber,
Advocates along with petitioners in
person.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha (ASC Criminal For
State) Along With Mr. Kshitiz Garg,
Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mrs. Chavi
Lazarus, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Advocates for State along with IO.
Complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 20.07.2026
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
“1 . To allow the Writ Petition under Article 226 Constitution of India
R/w Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for quashing
of E-FIR No. 1537/2019 dated 05.12 .2019 u/s 380/411/34 IPC PS
Mangolpuri presently Delhi with all the consequential proceedings arose
therefrom in the interest of justice..;”
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 21/07/2026 at 21:16:44
2. The petition is for the quashment of the FIR No. 1537/2019 for
offence under Section 380/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
registered at Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi.
3. The petitioners and the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 are present
physically. They have been identified by the Investigating Officer of the
case as well as by the respective counsel.
4. The facts of the case would indicate that owning to some alleged theft
by the petitioners in the hotel, the FIR was lodged by the complainant i.e.
respondent no.2. However, during the pendency of the FIR, it is submitted
that the parties have entered into a settlement by way of a Memorandum of
Understanding dated 17.02.2026, which is on record. The petitioner no.2 is
a female and is of a marriageable age.
5. In view of the aforesaid, respondent no.2 does not want any action
against the petitioners in view of the settlement. He has made his statement
voluntarily of his own accord without any coercion or pressure.
6. On behalf of the State there is no opposition in quashing of the FIR in
question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the
respondent no.2 and the statement of the respondent no.2.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of
Punjab & Anr.1 vide paragraph no.29 has held 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
1
(2014) 6 SCC 466This 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 21/07/2026 at 21:16:44
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 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, 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
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 21/07/2026 at 21:16:44
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, therefore, there is
no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &
Another2, vide paragraph no.61 has held as under:-
“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 exercised2
(2012) 10 SCC 303This 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 21/07/2026 at 21:16:44
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 or 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.”
9. In view of the aforesaid and bearing in mind the nature of the dispute,
the settlement between the parties and the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the FIR No. 1537/2019 for
offence under Section 380/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
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 21/07/2026 at 21:16:44
registered at Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi, and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed.
10. The petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands
disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 20, 2026
aks
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 21/07/2026 at 21:16:44
