% 08.10.2025

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. 52/2019 dated 11th April, 2019, registered under Sections 354 / 354(A) / 341 / 323 / 5063 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Chitranjan Park, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11th April 2019, the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, while returning home from work, was allegedly attacked from behind by the Petitioner, who forced her to the 1 "BNSS"

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 13/10/2025 at 21:41:25 ground, physically assaulted her, attempted to outrage her modesty, and threatened her with serious harm. On the basis of her complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 354 / 354A / 341 / 323 / 506 of IPC. Following the investigation, the Petitioner was charge-sheeted under the same provisions.

3. The parties with the intervention of family elders, well-wishers and other respectable members of society, have amicably resolved their disputes and Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the impugned FIR. A Memorandum of Settlement dated 30th August, 2025, has been executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.

4. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR.

5. Respondent No. 2, who appears in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that she does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. She confirms that her decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. She states that since the alleged incident, the Petitioner has expressed sincere remorse and has apologized to her, which she has accepted. However having regard to his future career, he was to move on in her life. 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.

6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Sections 354 / 354A of IPC are non-compoundable, Sections 323 / 341 / 506 of IPC are compoundable in certain cases.

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 13/10/2025 at 21:41:25

7. 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:

[Emphasis added]

8. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,6 the Supreme Court held as follows:

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 13/10/2025 at 21:41:25 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:

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]

9. Although the offences under Sections 354 / 354A of IPC cannot be treated as strictly 'in personam', and they 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.

10. The Complainant in the present case has categorically expressed her CRL.M.C. 6674/2025 Page 4 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 13/10/2025 at 21:41:25 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 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

11. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 52/2019, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

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 OCTOBER 8, 2025/MK CRL.M.C. 6674/2025 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 13/10/2025 at 21:41:25