Delhi High Court - Orders
Bhavishya Birhman vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3605/2025, CRL.M.A. 15883/2025
BHAVISHYA BIRHMAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Prakash Sharma and
Mr. Devesh Chaudharuy, Advocates
with Petitioner in person.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State.
SI Mohan Lal Delu, PS-Alipur.
Ms. Deeksha Gangwar, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 19.09.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 636/2023 registered under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Alipur, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13th September, 2023, the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, an MTS employee at All India Radio, was hit by a white WagonR car allegedly driven by the Petitioner while crossing the road near Khampur red light. It is alleged that the vehicle had jumped the signal and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. After the accident, the Petitioner, along with the colleagues of Respondent No. 2, transported him to the hospital in the same vehicle. Based on his statement, 1 "BNSS"
2"CrPC"3
"IPC"CRL.M.C. 3605/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 03/10/2025 at 22:09:00 the impugned FIR was registered. Upon completion of investigation, the Petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 279/338 of IPC and Sections 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.4
3. The parties with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society have amicably resolved their disputes. Respondent No. 2 has expressly stated that he does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR further. To this effect, a Deed of Settlement dated 8th May, 2023 has been executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof has been placed on record. Under the terms of the settlement, the Petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of INR 1,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as full and final compensation. In turn, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to extend his voluntary no objection to the quashing of the present FIR.
4. Respondent No.2 who appears in person and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He confirms that his decision is voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence. He further acknowledges receipt of the entire settlement amount from the Petitioner in terms of the Deed of Settlement, and also states that the Petitioner bore his medical expenses arising out of the incident. In addition, Respondent No. 2 notes that he has already received a sum of approximately INR 6,00,000/- from the insurance company in separate MACT proceedings. The Petitioner is also present in Court and duly identified. In view of the settlement, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 279 of IPC is non-compoundable, Section 338 of IPC 4 "MV Act"
CRL.M.C. 3605/2025 Page 2 of 5This 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 03/10/2025 at 22:09:00 is compoundable at the instance of the person to whom hurt was caused with the permission of the Court. Further, offences under Section 119/177 of MV Act are compoundable on payment of the fees, as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette.
6. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (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.5 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]
7. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,6 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:5
(2012) 10 SCC 303 6 (2014) 6 SCC 466 CRL.M.C. 3605/2025 Page 3 of 5 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 03/10/2025 at 22:09:00 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 him by not quashing the criminal cases."
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. Although the offence under Section 279 of 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 CRL.M.C. 3605/2025 Page 4 of 5 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 03/10/2025 at 22:09:00 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.
9. The Complainant in the present case 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.
10. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 636/2023 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed insofar as they relate to the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. As regards the offences under Sections 119 and 177 of MV Act, which are compoundable, the Petitioner shall deposit the prescribed compounding fee before the concerned Trial Court within six weeks. Upon such deposit, the proceedings in respect of those offences shall also stand closed.
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 SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 as CRL.M.C. 3605/2025 Page 5 of 5 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 03/10/2025 at 22:09:00