Delhi High Court
Survesh R vs State Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 17 September, 2025
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17.09.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 6611/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27834/2025 EXEMPTION
SURVESH R .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Navlendu Kumar and Mr.
Anupam Kumar, Adv.
Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP with SI
Sandeep, P.S.Vikaspuri.
Mr. Trilok Singh, Adv. for R-2
and R-3.
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. 34/2020, dated
19.01.2020, registered at P.S Vikaspuri, Delhi under Sections 279 IPC
& 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1954 and all proceedings emanating
therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.
2. As per allegations made in the FIR, on 19.01.2020, a Maruti
Swift VDI (DL8CA W4654) driven by petitioner under the influence
of alcohol collided into parked car (DL-3CBP-8394) of respondent no.
2 outside his residence causing extensive damage worth over Rs. 10
lakhs. Chargesheet has since been filed under sections 279 IPC & 185
of Motor Vehicle Act, 1954 against the petitioner. Respondent no.2 is
the complainant and respondent no. 3 is stated to be the registered
owner of Car No. DL-3CBP-8394
3. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved
their disputes and have recorded his statements on 04.02.2023 before
the court of Ld. MM-08, and on 08.07.2023 before the Ld. MM-05,
South West, Dwarka in Cr. Case No. 1982/2020. In view of the
aforesaid settlement petitioner has paid Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty
Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. Copy of the
statements in lieu of settlement dated 04.02.2023 and 08.07.2023
have been annexed as Annexure P-3 & P-5.
4. Petitioner is physically present before the Court while
respondent nos. 2 and 3 have entered their appearance through VC.
They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by
the Investigating Officer SI Sandeep from PS Vikaspuri.
5. Respondents confirm that the matter has been amicably settled
with the petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and they have no
objection if the FIR No. 34/2020 is quashed against the petitioner.
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. 34/2020 is quashed.
7. 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."
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. While it is true that the offences under Section 279 of IPC and
Section 185 of MV Act are not offences 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.
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 petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 34/2020, dated
19.01.2020, registered at P.S Vikaspuri, Delhi under section 279 IPC
& 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1954 and all the other consequential
proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.
12. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
September 17, 2025
SK
