[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Surjeet Singh & Anr vs State Of Nct Delhi & Anr on 22 December, 2025
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 22.12.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 9125/2025 & CRL.M.A. 38174/2025 STAY,
CRL.M.A. 38175/2025 EXEMPTION FROM FILING
CERTIFIED COPIES ETC.
SURJEET SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jinendra Jain, Mr. Krishna
Sharma, Mr. M. N. Mishra, Mr.
Kashish Gupta, Mr. Bijay
Lakshmi, Advs. with all
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP
with SI Deepak Yadav, PS
Mundka.
Mr. Manoj Gautam, Adv. for R-
2 with R-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, seeking quashing of FIR No. 769/2024, dated
31.12.2024, registered at P.S Mundka, Delhi under Sections
289/125(a) BNS (Section 287/337 IPC) and all proceedings
emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.
2. As per allegations, on 30.12.2024, hand of respondent no. 2 got
compressed in the moulding machine while working in petitioners'
factory. There was no glass in the safety door of the machine which
resulted in this accident. FIR No. 769/2024 was lodged at the instance
of respondent no. 2 under sections 289/125(a) BNS against the
petitioners.
3. It is submitted that respondent no. 2 was employed on
24.12.2024 by the petitioners. The entire medical expenses of around
Rs. 2,29,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Twenty Nine Thousand) was borne
by the petitioners and respondent no. 2 was duly taken care of his day
to day expenses and during this period he was paid salary
continuously. It is further submitted that petitioners have borne the
expenses of Rs. 1,28,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Eight Thousand)
for providing prosthetic hand to respondent no. 2 from rehabilitation
clinic and have agreed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) as
compensation. Respondent no. 2 has executed an affidavit dated
15.09.2025 that he has been duly compensated and has no objection in
case the FIR is quashed.
4. Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been
identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating
Officer SI Deepak Yadav, from PS Mundka.
5. Respondent no. 2 present in Court with his counsel confirms
that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without
any force, fear, coercion. He confirms that the entire medical expense
including the expense of providing prosthetic hand have been borne by
the petitioners and has received four demand drafts totaling Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) from the petitioners and has no
objection if the FIR No. 769/2024, PS Mundka is quashed against the
petitioners.
6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the
present FIR No. 769/2024 is quashed.
7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble
Supreme Courthas 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."
8. 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.
9. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably
resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any
coercion, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the
abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
10. The petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 769/2024, dated
31.12.2024, registered at P.S Mundka, Delhi under section 289/125(a)
BNS and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom
is hereby quashed.
11. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
December 22, 2025
SK/lks
