Delhi High Court - Orders
Love Kush & Anr vs State Of Nct Delhi & Anr on 8 October, 2025
$~43 & 44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & CRL.M.A. 6356/2025
LOVE KUSH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Narender Singh & Mr.
Sachin Kumar, Advs.
along with petitioners.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari,
(Adv.) ASC (Crl.) for the
State along with Mr. Arjit
Sharma & Ms. Sakshi Jha,
Advs.
SI Dinesh Kumar, PS
Nand Nagri.
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Ms.
Akshita Chaudhary, Advs.
for R-2 along with R-2 in
person.
+ W.P.(CRL) 680/2025
KUNAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar & Ms.
Akshita Chaudhary, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC
(Crl.) for the State along
with Mr. Kshitiz Garg,
Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr.
Nitish Dhawan, Mr.
Naman & Ms. Sanskriti
Nimbekar, Advs.
SI Dinesh Kumar, PS
Nand Nagri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 08.10.2025
1. W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 is filed by the petitioners seeking W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 1 of 9 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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49 quashing of FIR No. 684/2022 dated 24.08.2022, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri for the offences under Section 308/307/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 690/2022 dated 26.08.2022, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri for the offences under Sections 376/377/328/506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO'), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. It is averred that Respondent No. 2 in W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 filed a complaint alleging that a quarrel took place between the parties, pursuant to which the petitioners assaulted Respondent No.2 with a pointed object. The incident led to registration of FIR No. 684/2022 under Sections 308/307/452/34 of the IPC. It is averred that the FIR was erroneously filed under Sections 380/34 of IPC, whereas, the offence was committed under Sections 308/307/452/34 IPC.
4. The sister of the petitioners in W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 filed a complaint against the Respondent No. 2, who is the petitioner in W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 alleging that she was raped by him. The alleged incident led to registration of FIR No. 690/2022.
5. Petitioners in W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 are stated to be brothers of the victim in W.P.(CRL) 680/2025.
6. Petitioners in W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 are present in the Court and they state that pursuant to the complaint made by their sister, they got agitated and went to the complainant's house which led to altercation.
W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 2 of 9This 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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49
7. The parties are stated to be neighbours and an altercation took place between them. The parties appear to have settled all their acrimonies pursuant to the victim in FIR No. 690/2022 clarifying that nothing untoward has ever happened with her and false complaint was given by her on being tutored by some of her relatives.
8. The present petitions are filed on the ground that the matters have amicably been settled between the parties by way of Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.02.2025, out of their own free will, without any force, compulsion or coercion.
9. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 and the petitioner in W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 and the complainants/ Respondent Nos. 2 in the respective petitions are present in person in Court, and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
10. On being asked, the complainant in W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 state that the altercation occurred on account of a minor issue and that they live in the same neighbourhood.
11. On being asked, the complainant in W.P.(CRL) 680/2025, states that a false complaint was given by her on being pressurized by her relatives. She states that nothing, as complained, had ever happened.
12. They submit that they have decided to bury their disputes and live peacefully in the future. They further state that they have no objection if the cross FIRs and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
13. The petitioners, who are present in Court, state that they have learned their lesson and wish to live their lives peacefully W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 3 of 9 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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49 and in harmony and undertake not to indulge in any such activity in the future.
14. Offence under Sections 506 of the IPC is compoundable in nature, whereas offence under Section 308/307/452/376/377/328 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO are non-compoundable in nature.
15. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are non- compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed 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.W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 4 of 9
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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49 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) W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 5 of 9 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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49
16. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.:(2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 6 of 9 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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49 the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 7 of 9 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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49 economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
(emphasis supplied)
17. It is not in doubt that the offences under Section 6 of the POCSO and under Section 376/377/354 of the IPC are grave in nature. Offences of such nature cannot be quashed merely because the victims have settled the dispute. Such offences, in true sense, cannot be said to be offences in personam as the same are crimes against the society.
18. FIR No.684/2022 in W.P. (CRL) 679/2025 seems to have been registered due to a scuffle between the parties and FIR No.680/2025 in W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 seems to have been registered pursuant to a false complaint by the victim being pressurized by her relatives. The victim in W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 has also stated that nothing, as complained, had ever happened.
19. It is stated that the parties are neighbours. In the present matters, the respective complainants have stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present cross FIRs. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, it is unlikely that the present cross FIRs will result in conviction when the complainants themselves do not wish to pursue the cases and the victim in W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 gave a statement before this Court that a false complaint was given. It is not the case of State that there is any other evidence to corroborate the initial complaint.
W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 8 of 9This 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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49
20. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement and considering the statement given by the victim, putting the petitioners to the ordeal of the trial will not serve any purpose, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
21. In view of the above, FIR Nos.684/2022 & 690/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
22. The present petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
23. A copy of the order be placed in both the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 8, 2025 "SK"
W.P.(CRL) 679/2025 & W.P.(CRL) 680/2025 Page 9 of 9This 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 31/10/2025 at 21:54:49