Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjay Mishra vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 8 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 659/2025 & CRL.M.A. 3150/2025
SANJAY MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hanush, Mr. Sachin and Mr.
Deepak, Advocates.
Petitioner through VC.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the
State.
SI Sachin Panwar, PS: Fatehpur Beri.
Complainant through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 08.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 105/2021 under Sections 354, 354(D), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Fatehpur Beri and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly, the case of the Prosecution is that a complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging that the Petitioner, her neighbour and a local leader, subjected her to physical and mental harassment. The Complainant 1 "BNSS"
2"Cr.P.C."CRL.M.C. 659/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 10/07/2025 at 21:35:24 stated that in 2018, when her brother was arrested by the Ghaziabad police, the Petitioner demanded ₹1,00,000/- in exchange for helping secure his release. After she refused, he began frequently visiting her residence. Following her brother's release in 2019, the Petitioner allegedly resumed his demands and threatened to have her brother re-arrested if she did not cooperate. It is further alleged that the Petitioner forcibly grabbed the Complainant's hand, made inappropriate and indecent advances towards her, and threatened to defame her and harm her family. The Complainant also alleged that the Petitioner persistently called her, followed her, and continued to harass her both mentally and physically. Consequently, based on the Complainant's statement, the subject FIR was registered on 16th March, 2021, under Sections 354, 354D and 506 of the IPC. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed, wherein the Petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 354, 354(A), 354(D), 506 and 509 of the IPC.
3. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Deed dated 3rd April, 2024 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
4. A copy of the Settlement Deed has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give her no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. As per the settlement, the parties have forgiven each other, and have agreed to withdraw the cases against each other.
3"IPC"CRL.M.C. 659/2025 Page 2 of 6
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 10/07/2025 at 21:35:24
5. In view of the settlement, the Complainant, who has appeared before the Court via video conferencing and is identified by her counsel, has unequivocally stated that she does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. She has confirmed that her decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. She has also clarified that she has neither received nor intends to receive any monetary compensation or other consideration from the Petitioner in connection with this settlement. The Petitioner has also joined the proceedings through video conferencing 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.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Sections 354, 354A and 354D of IPC are non-compoundable, Sections 506 and 509 of IPC are compoundable by the person so intimidated and the woman so insulted, with the permission of the Court. 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.4 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 4 (2012) 10 SCC 303 CRL.M.C. 659/2025 Page 3 of 6 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 10/07/2025 at 21:35:24 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.,5 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:
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 5 (2014) 6 SCC 466 CRL.M.C. 659/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 10/07/2025 at 21:35:24 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 offences under Sections 354, 354A and 354D of the IPC cannot be treated as strictly 'in personam', and touch 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 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. The Complainant in the present case has categorically expressed her 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.
9. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been put to motion, the ends of justice would be served if the Petitioner is put to CRL.M.C. 659/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 10/07/2025 at 21:35:24 cost.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 105/2021 P.S. Fatehpur Beri, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of a cost of INR 10,000/- by the Petitioner to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of six weeks from today. The proof of payment of cost be submitted with the concerned IO.
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 JULY 8, 2025 d.negi CRL.M.C. 659/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 10/07/2025 at 21:35:24