Om Prakash vs State Through Sho Ps Dilshad Garden & Anr on 8 September, 2025

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Om Prakash vs State Through Sho Ps Dilshad Garden & Anr on 8 September, 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. 199/2007 dated 26th June, 2007, registered under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Dilshad Garden, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly, the case of the Prosecution against the Petitioner emanates from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging that the Petitioner was permitted to use a flat owned by the Complainant while he was employed with the Complainant's late brother. Upon termination of his services, he 1 "BNSS"

"CrPC"

"IPC"

CRL.M.C. 6325/2025 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 19/09/2025 at 22:33:25 allegedly continued to occupy the premises unlawfully and later fabricated documents to obtain a conveyance deed in his own name, thereby attracting offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the Petitioner for the said offences.

3. The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondent No. 2 has amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioner and has decided not to pursue the present FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, a Memorandum of Understanding4 dated 30th August, 2025, has been executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, the Petitioner has agreed that he shall have no claim, right, title, or interest in the disputed flat and tendered an unconditional apology to Respondent No.2. The MoU further records that Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give his no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR.

4. In view of the settlement, the Complainant, who has appeared before the Court in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer, has unequivocally stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He has confirmed that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The Petitioner has also joined the proceedings in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

CRL.M.C. 6325/2025 Page 2 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 19/09/2025 at 22:33:25

5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Section 467, 468, 471 of the IPC are non-compoundable, the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are compoundable in certain cases, with the permission of the Court.

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 4 "MoU"

(2012) 10 SCC 303 6 (2014) 6 SCC 466 CRL.M.C. 6325/2025 Page 3 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.

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. 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 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 CRL.M.C. 6325/2025 Page 4 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.

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 present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 199/2007, P.S. Dilshad Garden, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

11. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner. Accordingly, Petitioner is directed to deposit INR 15,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today.

12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.

13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s).

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 nk CRL.M.C. 6325/2025 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 19/09/2025 at 22:33:25

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders