Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 0130/2022 registered under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in view of an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, observing, “no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR” and quashed all consequential proceedings.
Facts:
The petitioners had filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR in question. The genesis of the case traces back to cross-litigation between the parties. Petitioner No. 1 had earlier filed FIR No. 24/2022 under Sections 354D and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against Respondent No. 2. In retaliation, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 0130/2022 under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, alleging that the petitioners had used casteist slurs, harassed him at the workplace, and conspired to falsely implicate him in a harassment case.
After the investigation, a closure report was submitted. However, Respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka. Thereafter, the matter was remanded by the Delhi High Court on 22.09.2023 for limited consideration.
During the pendency of these proceedings, both parties agreed to resolve their disputes amicably and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.04.2025. The MoU stated that the parties would withdraw their respective complaints and litigation. Based on the MoU, the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 0130/2022 was filed.
Issues:
Whether an FIR registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be quashed on the basis of a mutual settlement between the parties under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
Petitioners’ Arguments:
The petitioners submitted that all disputes with Respondent No. 2 had been amicably resolved through a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.04.2025. They emphasized that all complaints, including FIRs, had been withdrawn as part of the settlement and that no further litigation would be pursued by either side. The petitioners also gave an undertaking to assist Respondent No. 2 in quashing the FIR lodged by them under Sections 354D and 509 IPC.
They argued that given the mutual resolution, continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and amount to an abuse of process. They placed reliance on the MoU and the voluntary consent of Respondent No. 2 to support the plea for quashing.
Respondent’s Arguments:
Respondent No. 2, appearing in person and through his counsel, confirmed that the matter had been settled amicably without any coercion or undue influence. He raised no objection to the quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioners. He also acknowledged the fulfillment of conditions under the MoU and confirmed that he had no grievance remaining against the petitioners. The State also did not oppose the quashing petition, stating that the matter had been resolved mutually.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court examined Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to the earlier Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This provision preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
The Court also analyzed the scope of quashing proceedings involving non-compoundable offences under special statutes like the SC/ST Act. While generally, offences under the SC/ST Act are not compoundable and quashing is not readily allowed due to the gravity and public policy considerations, the Court recognized the exceptional circumstances of the case, including the voluntary and amicable resolution of the entire dispute and the fact that the allegations arose out of personal enmity and retaliatory FIRs.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court placed reliance on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303. In that case, the Supreme Court held:
“The High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite the settlement between the victim and the wrongdoer.”
The Delhi High Court applied the above ratio, holding that since the parties had voluntarily resolved the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court noted that both parties were physically present in Court and had affirmed the terms of the MoU. The Investigating Officer and counsel had also verified their identities and the terms of settlement. The Court found that the entire genesis of the FIR stemmed from inter-personal disputes between the parties, which had now been fully and finally settled.
The Judge opined that “no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR” and observed that the power under Section 528 could be invoked to quash proceedings in exceptional cases where the parties had amicably settled their differences and continuation of criminal proceedings would cause injustice or abuse of process.
Conclusion:
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0130/2022 dated 04.03.2022 registered at Police Station Sector 23, Dwarka under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts, in the exercise of their inherent powers, can quash FIRs even under stringent statutes like the SC/ST Act, provided the matter is entirely personal in nature and has been mutually resolved. It underscores the judiciary’s evolving stance towards promoting restorative justice and reducing burden on the criminal justice system through amicable settlements, even in sensitive cases.
Cases Referred:
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
- Reiterated that High Courts have the power to quash non-compoundable offences where continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process or against the interest of justice, particularly when the matter arises from private disputes.
FAQs:
Q1. Can an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act be quashed on the basis of settlement?
Yes, in exceptional cases involving personal disputes, where allegations are not grave and both parties have amicably resolved the matter, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR even under the SC/ST Act.
Q2. What is the legal basis for quashing non-compoundable offences in India?
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 CrPC), gives the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice, including quashing of FIRs in appropriate cases.
Q3. What role does a Memorandum of Understanding play in quashing proceedings?
A MoU evidences mutual resolution of disputes and forms a basis for the court to consider whether the criminal proceedings should be terminated, especially when the complainant raises no objection to the quashing.