The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna, has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 328, 379, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with subsequent criminal proceedings, after noting that the parties reached an amicable settlement and continuation of the case would serve no purpose. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)—the Court underscored that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable matters when the dispute is resolved and no overarching public interest is impaired.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose out of FIR No. 129/2021, registered on 04th April, 2021, at Police Station Paschim Vihar East, Outer District, Delhi. The FIR was originally lodged under Sections 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence), 379 (theft), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongside Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Following the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet on 03rd June, 2021, arraigning the petitioner for the offences specified in the FIR. However, when charges were formally framed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC 349/2021 on 11th September, 2023, charges were framed solely under Sections 328, 379, and 506 of the IPC.
Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings on the ground that the dispute had been fully resolved between the parties.
Submissions of the Parties
During the hearing, both the petitioner and respondent no. 2 appeared before the Court and were identified by counsel and the concerned Investigating Officer. The Court was informed that the parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed on 10th September, 2026. Under the terms of this agreement, respondent no. 2 agreed to cooperate in quashing the FIR without seeking any monetary compensation or financial transaction.
It was additionally placed on record that the petitioner is married and has a two-year-old daughter. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no. 2 affirmed that in view of the settlement and considering that the petitioner is now married with a daughter, he had no intention to pursue the criminal prosecution any further. Statutory affidavits executed by both parties were also brought on record.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, in light of the settlement executed between the parties, the State had no objection to the quashing of the proceedings.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedent
Examining the scope of Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), Justice Mini Pushkarna observed:
“It is well settled that High Courts may exercise their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash criminal proceedings even with respect to non-compoundable offences, if the concerned parties have arrived at a compromise or settlement, and particularly when no overarching public interest is adversely affected by quashing the same. The ultimate guiding factors in such cases must be to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of law.”
To substantiate this principle, the Court placed reliance on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, highlighting the following legal standard laid down by the apex court:
“Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”
Decision of the Court
Applying the principles settled by the Supreme Court to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Delhi High Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would be futile given the amicable compromise. Accordingly, the Court quashed FIR No. 129/2021 dated 04th April, 2021, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar East, along with all proceedings emanating from it, and disposed of the pending application.
Case Title: Tanvi Rajput versus State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 6601/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27592/2026
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Date: 12th October, 2026
