Delhi High Court
Himanshu Gupta And Ors vs The State (State Of Delhi) And Anr on 4 September, 2025
$~ 49 & 53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 04.09.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26445/2025 EXEMPTION,
CRL.M.A. 26446/2025 DELAY
HIMANSHU GUPTA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.S. Chhillar, Mr. S.P.
Anand, Advs. with all petitioner
in person.
versus
THE STATE (STATE OF DELHI) AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI
Vikash Fageria, PS Subzi
Mandi.
Ms. Mansha Gupta, Ms.
Radhika Gupta, Mr.
Raghwendra Pratap Rao, Advs.
for R-2 with R-2 in person.
53
+ CRL.M.C. 6283/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26569/2025EXEMPTION
PANKAJ JAIN & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Mansha Gupta, Ms.
Radhika Gupta, Mr.
Raghwendra Pratap Rao, Advs.
with P-1, P-2, P-3 in person and
P-4 through VC.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP, with SI
Vikash Fageria, PS Subzi
Mandi.
Mr. S.S. Chhillar, Mr. S.P.
Anand, Advs. for R-2 with R-2
in person.
CRL.M.C. 6256/2025 & 6283/2025 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:08.09.2025
10:40:21
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. These are petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of two FIRs i.e. one bearing No.
325/2020 dated 21.09.2020, for the alleged offences under Sections
354B/509/34 of IPC and the second bearing no. 317/2020 dated
17.09.2020 under Sections 354/506/323 of IPC, both lodged at Police
Station Subzi Mandi, and all other consequential proceedings arising
there fromon the basis of a compromise.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and
private respondents in both petitions submit that there was a serious
misunderstanding on the part of their clients that led to lodging of FIR
and cross FIR, as above. The parties have now amicably settled the
matter vide Compromise Deed/ Memorandum of Settlement dated
26.10.2024 and hence the two petitions seeking quashing of the two
FIRs. Copy of the Compromise Deed/Memorandum of Settlement
dated 26.10.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-5.
3. Both FIRs, ibid, arising out of the same incident on the same
date, represent a version and counter-version of the dispute. The
matter pertains to verbal and physical assault by tearing clothes and
issuing threats. Chargehsheets have since been filed under sections
354/509/506/323/34 IPC.
4. All Parties are physically present before the Court except
Petitioner no. 4 namely Riya Gupta in case FIR no. 317/2020 who has
entered her appearance through VC. They have been identified by
their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI
Vikash Fageria, from PS Subzi Mandi. It has been submitted that one
of the accused in FIR no. 317/2020 namely Daleep Gupta has expired
during the pendency of the trial and proceedings qua him stand
abetted.
5. Both parties confirm that the matter has been amicably settled
with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and they have no
objection if the FIR Nos. 325/2020 and 317/2020 are quashed against
the Petitioners. They further submit that the dispute is private in
nature.
6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the FIR
Nos. 325/2020 and 317/2020 are 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. The parties are relatives of each other and dispute arose out of
misunderstanding as stated, thus dispute is essentially private in
nature. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would rather amount
to an abuse of the process of law. Not quashing the criminal
proceedings would rather rekindle hostility, whereas quashing the
same would promote cordiality and bonhomie between the parties.
10. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably
resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any
coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the
abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
11. The petitions are allowed, and both the FIRs i.e. one bearing
Nos. 325/2020 dated 21.09.2020, under Sections 354B/509/34 of IPC
and the second bearing no. 317/2020 dated 17.09.2020 under Sections
354/506/323 of IPC, Police Station Subzi Mandi, and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed
subject to petitioners in both cases depositing cost of Rs. 5,000/- each
with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a period of one
month.
12. Petitions is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
September 04, 2025
SK
