1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has quashed FIR No. 492/2021, registered under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, after confirming that the complainant and the accused had voluntarily resolved their dispute through a written settlement. The Court held that insisting on continuation of the criminal prosecution—despite acknowledged compromise—would be contrary to the interest of justice and amount to an abuse of process.
Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, the Court found that the case arose from a personal altercation, had no public impact, and that the complainant expressly did not wish to pursue the matter. The FIR was therefore quashed, subject to the petitioners depositing ₹10,000 with the Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Trust within one month.
2. Facts
The FIR arose from an altercation on 24 October 2021 involving the complainant and two petitioners. According to the complaint, the scooty driven by Petitioner No. 2 collided with respondent No. 2, triggering an argument. Petitioner No. 2 allegedly called Petitioner No. 1 to the scene, and together they purportedly pulled the complainant’s hair, slapped him, kicked him, and threatened to kill him.
The FIR was registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 IPC (common intention). A chargesheet was filed, and charges were framed during the pendency of the case.
In September 2025, the parties executed a Settlement Deed dated 18.09.2025, documenting their decision to amicably resolve the dispute. All petitioners and respondents appeared before the High Court, and their identities were confirmed by their respective lawyers and the Investigating Officer from P.S. Gandhi Nagar.
Respondent No. 2 unequivocally stated that he had settled the matter without any pressure, coercion or inducement and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
The State also raised no objection to quashing in view of the compromise.
3. Issues
The Court considered the following questions:
- Whether offences under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC, though non-compoundable, can be quashed on the basis of a settlement.
- Whether the settlement presented was genuine, voluntary and capable of forming the basis for quashing of the FIR.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings would serve any legitimate purpose once the complainant has withdrawn his grievances.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that the incident was a minor scuffle arising from a momentary altercation on the road and did not involve any serious public interest dimension. They contended that the complainant had voluntarily agreed to a peaceful settlement, documented through a written compromise dated 18.09.2025.
They relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh and B.S. Joshi, arguing that the High Court possesses inherent powers to quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is private and prosecution would amount to abuse of process.
The petitioners emphasised that the complainant and the petitioners were known to each other locally and wished to end the dispute to restore community harmony.
5. Respondents’ arguments
Respondent No. 2 personally confirmed before the Court that he had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that the settlement was voluntary. There was no opposition from the State; the Additional Public Prosecutor accepted the compromise and stated that the State had no objection to quashing the FIR.
The IO from P.S. Gandhi Nagar identified both parties, confirming their presence and willingness.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that while offences such as Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC are technically non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, the High Court retains broad inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash such cases when:
• the dispute is private or personal in nature,
• the complainant and accused have settled voluntarily,
• no overriding public interest is implicated, and
• continuation of trial would be an abuse of process.
Referring to Gian Singh, the Court emphasised that criminal law should not be used to perpetuate litigation when the victim and the accused have reached a genuine compromise. The test laid down in Gian Singh—whether continuation of proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice—was applied directly.
The Court also referenced B.S. Joshi, which clarified that courts may quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable matters when ends of justice so require.
Given the personal nature of the altercation, absence of any grave or heinous crime, and full consent of the complainant, the Court concluded that the dispute fell squarely within the category of cases suitable for quashing.
7. Precedent analysis
The following precedents form the legal backbone of the judgment:
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 —
Recognizes High Court’s power to quash non-compoundable offences when settlement renders prosecution pointless. Quoted extensively in the judgment.
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 —
Affirms inherent powers to quash proceedings in private disputes, even if the statute does not permit compounding.
These cases have shaped the jurisprudence that distinguishes compoundability from quashability, enabling courts to prioritize justice over technicality.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court determined that the present case satisfied all the essential criteria:
• The dispute arose from a sudden, non-grievous road-side incident.
• The complainant voluntarily withdrew all allegations.
• There was no societal impact or element of brutality that would bar quashing.
• The State did not oppose the petition; the public prosecutor acknowledged the compromise.
• A formal written settlement existed and was duly verified in person.
Therefore, requiring the accused to face a criminal trial would waste judicial resources, disrupt the lives of the parties, and serve no purpose in the administration of justice.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, subject only to a modest cost deposit.
9. Conclusion
The petition was allowed. FIR No. 492/2021 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed on the basis of a genuine, voluntary and mutually accepted settlement.
The quashing was made conditional upon the petitioners depositing ₹10,000 with the Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Trust (UCO Bank A/c No. 15530210002995) within one month. All pending applications were disposed of.
10. Implications
This judgment reinforces the expanding role of conciliatory justice in India’s criminal jurisprudence. It clarifies that:
• Non-compoundable offences of a personal or minor nature may be quashed if settlement is genuine.
• Courts prioritise restorative outcomes over rigid formalism.
• The victim’s express consent remains a crucial factor.
• Quashing saves judicial time and facilitates community-level conflict resolution.
The ruling serves as a guiding precedent for quashing petitions arising from neighbourhood disputes, road-side altercations and personal quarrels.
Case Law References
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 — Principles governing quashing based on settlement, including abuse-of-process analysis. Applied verbatim.
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 — Recognized High Court’s inherent powers to quash non-compoundable offences where justice demands. Applied fully.
FAQs
1. Can non-compoundable offences under Sections 323, 341, 506 IPC be quashed on the basis of compromise?
Yes. High Courts may quash such cases when the dispute is personal, settlement is genuine, and prosecution would serve no purpose.
2. Does the complainant need to appear for quashing?
Yes. Courts generally require personal confirmation that the settlement is voluntary and free from coercion.
3. Can the High Court impose costs while quashing FIRs?
Yes. Courts often direct payment to legal services or welfare funds as a condition for quashing, as done here.
