[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Arjun Singh Rawat vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 6 December, 2025
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 06.12.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 3044/2025
ARJUN SINGH RAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shariq Iqbal, Advocate.
Petitioner through VC.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP
with SI Bala Saheb, PS-B.K.
Road.
Ms. Manavi Joshi, Adv. for R-2
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 3/2023, dated
22.06.2023, registered at P.S Kartavya Path under sections 279/337
IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of
settlement between the parties.
2. As per allegations, while driving car No. DL-10CR-7771 at a
fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, petitioner struck against
a rehri rickshaw, driven by respondent No. 2, thereby causing grievous
injuries on his person. Aforesaid FIR was registered under sections
279/337 IPC against the petitioner. Chargesheet has since been filed
under sections 279/338 IPC against the petitioner.
3. During the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their
disputes with the intervention of some common friends and elderly
persons and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated
21.08.2023. In pursuance of the Settlement, it is submitted that the
petitioner has paid Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) to be
Respondent No.2 as per the schedule mentioned in the settlement. It is
further submitted that for the damage caused to rehri rickshaw,
petitioner has today transferred Rs. 25,000/- to the account of
respondent No. 2 through UPI. The copy of Memorandum of
Understanding dated 21.08.2023 has been placed on record as
Annexure A.
4. The matter was placed before the Joint Registrar, who has
recorded the statements of both the parties and passed the following
orders:-
"07.05.2025
Today, statement of counsel for respondent no. 2 has been
recorded to ascertain the veracity and the genuineness of
the parties entering into settlement.
Let the pre-verified statement along with this order be
placed before the Hon'ble Court on 14th May, 2025."
5. Respondent No. 2 is physically present before the Court while
petitioner has entered his appearance through VC. They have been
identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating
Officer SI Bala Saheb, from PS B.K. Road.
6. Respondent No.2 submits that the matter has been settled with
the Petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and confirms that he
has received the entire compensation amount of Rs. 80,000/- along Rs.
25,000/- via UPI from the Petitioner and has no objection if the FIR
No. 0003/2023 is quashed against the Petitioner.
7. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the
present FIR No. 3/2023 is quashed.
8. In Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of
disputes by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or
continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings."
9. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482
of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or
to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court
can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of
the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned
parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675.
10. While it is true that the offence under Section 279 of IPC is
not an offence in personam, thereby that it affects society at large
and not just the individual complainant, the Court must also take
into account the practical realities of securing a conviction in the
present case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where
the chances of conviction are remote due to an amicable
settlement between the parties, the Court should consider
whether continuing the prosecution would serve any meaningful
purpose.
11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties
have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in
continuing with the present FIR No. 0003/2023, dated 22.06.2023,
registered at P.S Kartavya Path under sections 279/337 IPC alongwith
charge sheet and all the other consequential proceeding emanating
therefrom.
12. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.
0003/2023, dated 22.06.2023, registered at P.S Kartavya Path under
sections 279/337 IPC alongwith charge sheet and all the other
consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.
13. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
DECEMBER 06, 2025/SK
