1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has quashed FIR No. 561/2021, registered under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, after noting that the complainant and the accused had voluntarily resolved their dispute through a formal written settlement. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court accepted the statements of both parties—each physically present in court—and confirmed that the compromise was genuine, free from coercion, and mutually accepted. Accordingly, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed, subject to the accused depositing ₹10,000 with DSLSA within one month.
2. Facts
The case arose from an altercation on 6 December 2021 when the complainant (respondent No. 2) and her son were travelling on a scooty. According to the FIR, the petitioner suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle, causing a collision. The FIR alleged that the accused removed the scooty key, caught hold of the complainant, and pushed her, leading her to lodge a complaint under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 354 (assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty). A chargesheet was later filed.
During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a Settlement Deed dated 18.09.2025, formally acknowledging that they had resolved their dispute amicably. The accused and the complainant appeared before the High Court, where their identities were confirmed by their counsel and by the Investigating Officer from P.S. Gandhi Nagar. Each confirmed voluntary settlement without force, fear, or pressure.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, indicated no objection to quashing the FIR in view of the compromise.
3. Issues
The High Court was required to examine:
- Whether an FIR involving offences under Sections 341 and 354 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties.
- Whether the settlement presented before the Court was bona fide and capable of forming the basis for quashing.
- Whether the principles governing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) justified quashing in the facts at hand.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner contended that the dispute was entirely personal and stemmed from a sudden road-side altercation. He argued that the complainant had, of her own free will, agreed to withdraw her grievance and to settle the matter through a written Settlement Deed.
It was submitted that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose, especially when the complainant had unequivocally stated she had no objection to quashing. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence that personal offences or disputes of a private character may be quashed when settlement advances the ends of justice and prevents unnecessary litigation.
5. Respondents’ arguments
Respondent No. 2, the complainant, personally confirmed that she had amicably resolved her dispute with the petitioner and that the compromise was free from force or pressure. She stated she had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, also stated that in view of the voluntary settlement, the State had no objection to quashing the proceedings.
6. Analysis of the law
The High Court applied the established principles on quashing criminal proceedings in cases involving non-compoundable offences. Although Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court may nevertheless quash proceedings under its inherent powers if the dispute is private in nature and the continuance of proceedings would not serve the interests of justice.
The Court relied heavily on the binding precedent in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court held that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if continuation would be unfair, contrary to justice, or amount to abuse of process, provided the settlement is genuine. Similarly, in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that courts may quash proceedings in non-compoundable matrimonial and personal disputes when warranted by justice and fairness.
Applying these standards, the Court found:
• The compromise was genuine, voluntary, and verified in person.
• The nature of the dispute was personal and not of public importance.
• The complainant had no interest in prosecuting further.
• The State was not opposed to quashing.
• Continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose.
On these considerations, the Court concluded that quashing was appropriate to secure justice.
7. Precedent analysis
The judgment applied these foundational case laws:
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 —
Held that High Courts may quash non-compoundable offences if continuation would be an abuse of process and if the dispute is personal in nature. The Court quoted paragraph 61, which articulates the framework for examining whether prosecution should be terminated upon settlement.
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 —
Recognised the High Court’s power to quash non-compoundable offences when justice so requires, especially in disputes of a personal or private character.
The Court also relied on Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), which empowers High Courts to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
Together, these precedents form the backbone of the Court’s reasoning.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the allegations arose from a sudden street-side altercation with no public or societal ramifications. The complainant’s categorical statement—free from coercion—was a crucial factor.
The Court reasoned that pursuing a criminal trial despite resolution would be contrary to justice, especially when the victim no longer supported prosecution. It found that no larger interest of society would be harmed by quashing, and that trials conducted without victim participation often collapse, wasting judicial time.
With all parties consenting, the Court held it appropriate to bring the criminal case to an end. It emphasized that inherent powers are meant to advance justice, not to perpetuate proceedings devoid of purpose.
The Court therefore quashed the FIR and all proceedings, providing closure to both parties.
9. Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 561/2021 and all consequential proceedings, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹10,000 with DSLSA within one month.
The settlement was held genuine and voluntary, and continuation of prosecution was found to constitute an abuse of process of law.
10. Implications
This ruling reaffirms that:
• High Courts retain broad discretionary power under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to quash non-compoundable offences when settlement makes prosecution purposeless.
• Personal disputes—even those involving Section 354 IPC—may be quashed when the complainant unequivocally withdraws her allegations and the State has no objection.
• Courts prioritise restorative justice, closure, and efficient use of judicial resources when the facts justify such an approach.
The judgment strengthens jurisprudence supporting consensual resolution in minor interpersonal offences.
Case Law References
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 — Established principles permitting quashing of non-compoundable offences upon genuine settlement where continuing prosecution would be unjust or oppressive.
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 — Recognised the inherent power of High Courts to quash proceedings in the interest of justice, even in non-compoundable cases.
FAQs
1. Can an FIR under Section 354 IPC be quashed based on compromise?
Yes. While Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable, the High Court may quash it under inherent powers if the complainant voluntarily settles the dispute and continuing prosecution would serve no purpose.
2. Does the State’s consent matter in quashing a non-compoundable offence?
Yes. When the State raises no objection and the victim affirms the compromise, courts are more inclined to quash proceedings.
3. What conditions can the Court impose while quashing such FIRs?
Courts often impose costs or direct contributions to legal services authorities, as done here with a ₹10,000 deposit to DSLSA.