Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Supreet Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4339/2025
SH. SUPREET SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate with
Petitioner in person
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with SI Arvind, SI Anil, PS Cyber
West
Mr. Hemant Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 with
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 15.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 16/20223 registered under Sections 354D/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Cyber West and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The impugned FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 wherein she alleged that she had been subjected to ongoing bullying, 1 "BNSS"
2"Cr.P.C."3
"the impugned FIR"4
"IPC"CRL.M.C. 4339/2025 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 16/07/2025 at 22:46:38 physical and cyberstalking, as well as sexual harassment by an unidentified individual whom she could recognize. She stated that on 14th February, 2022, she received an anonymous delivery at her studio consisting of a bouquet of flowers, chocolates and a letter. The following day, she received a phone call from an unknown number. The caller identified himself as Surpreet Singh (the Petitioner) and claimed responsibility for sending the afore-mentioned items. The Complainant immediately blocked his number. Despite this, the harassment continued when she later received a WhatsApp message from the same individual, which she also blocked. On 3rd March, 2022, she saw that an unknown car bearing DL2CAP0250 was parked outside her studio and a man was staring at her and making inappropriate, sexually suggestive gestures. That same evening, the car began following her movements. The Petitioner also created multiple fake social media accounts and repeatedly attempted to contact Respondent No. 2 through Instagram. To demonstrate his presence near her, he sent her recorded videos showing himself outside her studio.
3. The parties have now, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, amicably resolved their disputes and Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the present FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 27th February, 2025, was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner, who is also present in person, has tendered an apology to Respondent No. 2, which is duly accepted by her.
4. Respondent No. 2, who is present in person and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, states that she does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings and gives her no objection to the quashing of the FIR. She has CRL.M.C. 4339/2025 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 16/07/2025 at 22:46:38 confirmed that her decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. She states that she has moved on in life.
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 354D of IPC is non-compoundable, Section 509 of IPC is compoundable by the person so intimidated and the woman whose modesty was insulted, with the permission of the Court.
6. It is well-settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of 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 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303 6 (2014) 6 SCC 466 CRL.M.C. 4339/2025 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 16/07/2025 at 22:46:38 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 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 354D of the 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 CRL.M.C. 4339/2025 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 16/07/2025 at 22:46:38 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. Additionally, the Complainant has now moved on in life. 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 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
9. However, considering the fact the State machinery has been put into motion, ends of justice would be served if the Petitioners are put to cost.
10. In view of the foregoing, the impugned FIR No. 16/2022 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of INR 25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society within a period of two weeks.
11. Having regard to the nature of allegations, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to undertake community service as a measure of accountability and reflection. The Petitioner is accordingly directed to perform 50 hours of community service at Lok Nayak Jai CRL.M.C. 4339/2025 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 16/07/2025 at 22:46:38 Prakash Narayan Hospital within a period of 30 days. The Petitioner shall report to the Medical Superintendent of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital on 21st July, 2025, for instructions and assignment of duties. Upon completion of the said hours, a certificate confirming the completion of community service shall be issued by the Medical Superintendent and the same shall be filed with the Registry. In the event of any absenteeism, default, or misconduct on the part of the Petitioner during the course of the community service, the same shall be immediately reported by the Medical Superintendent to the concerned SHO, who shall, in turn, inform the APP for placing the matter before this Court and seeking appropriate orders, including revival of the FIR.
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 JULY 15, 2025/ab CRL.M.C. 4339/2025 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 16/07/2025 at 22:46:38