Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Sandhya Prabhakar - Petitioner
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr - Respondents
CRL. M.C. 2592 of 2018 & CRL. M.A. 9206 of 2018
Decided On : 27-03-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajkamal, Mr. Aseem Atwal, Ms. Aparjita Tyagi And Mr. Ishaan Ojha, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, App Mr. Deepak Tyagi, Adv.
A settlement reached without the consent of all parties involved cannot be binding, particularly in criminal matters where certain offences are not compoundable.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324, 341, and 506 - Quashing of FIR - Parties reached a settlement recorded in MOU dated 23.09.2015, but the complainant did not endorse it - The court held that the settlement cannot bind the complainant who was not a party to it. (Paras 2, 12, 15)
(B) Mediation and Settlement - The court emphasized the importance of settlements reached through mediation, stating that once a settlement is endorsed by the parties, they should not be allowed to resile from it. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Compounding of Offences - The court noted that the offence under Section 324 IPC is not compoundable, and thus, the FIR cannot be quashed without the complainant's consent. (Paras 6, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed for quashing an FIR arising from a scuffle between neighbors, which was settled between some parties but not the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complainant's lack of participation in the settlement rendered it non-binding on her, and thus the FIR and charges could not be quashed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the settlement could bind the complainant and the implications of partial compounding of offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a settlement must involve all parties to be binding, and the absence of the complainant from the settlement process invalidates any claim to quash the FIR.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing of FIR No.528/2007, under Section 323/341/506 IPC, P.S. Kalkaji in which Chargesheet has been filed under Section 324/323/341/506 IPC.
2. It is submitted that the parties were neighbours against whom a scuffle took place resulting in registration of the present FIR. The parties eventually arrived at a settlement which was recorded vide MOU dated 23.09.2015. The Complainant and the Petitioner had appeared before the learned M.M who recorded the Statement of Mr. S.S. Chhibber and quashed the charges under Section 341/34 IPC, however, it was observed that the offence under Section 324 IPC is not compoundable and the matter was listed for further proceedings.
3. Thereafter, the matter proceeded as the statement of the injured Ms. Manju Chhibber as PW.1 was recorded on 07.03.2018. Her part cross examination was also conducted after which on 07.03.2018 learned counsel for the Petitioner/accused took an adjournment on the basis of the Settlement which was arrived at between the parties on 23.09.2015. Even though Col. Chhibber had compounded and made a statement before the Court but subsequently he also appeared as PW.2 and has deposed about the incident though his cross examination was sought to be differed in view of the Settlement between the parties dated 23.09.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it was a scuffle between the neighbours and the matter got amicably settled and even the offence under Section 341 has been permitted to be compounded and the Petitioner acquitted against which no Revision or challenge has been made by the Complainant or her husband. It is submitted that in terms of the MOU dated 23.09.2015 the matter stands compounded and, therefore, the FIR be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on Anshu Soni & Ors. vs. State & Anr., 2012 SCC Online Del. 5967 and Jaibir & Ors vs. State & Anr., 2007 SCC Online Del. 518 wherein it has been observed that mediated settlement which have been partly acted upon must be given their due significance and once the parties have endorsed the settlement the same should be taken to its logical end.
6. Learned APP submits that the MOU was not signed by injured Ms. Manju Chhibber and she also did not appear in the Court to make any statement endorsing the MOU and therefore, there cannot be quashing of the FIR.
7. Learned counsel on behalf of the Complainant/injured submits that Ms. Manju Chhibber was the Complainant and she has not compounded the offence and is not inclined to settle the matter. Col. S.S. Chhibber, her husband may have agreed for a Settlement, but that cannot be held to be binding on the Complainant.
8. Submissions heard and record perused
9. Pertinently, on the complaint of Ms. Manju Chhibber about an incident of fighting, which took place on 01.06.2007, FIR under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC was registered. After investigations, the Chargesheet was filed under Section 324/323/341/506/34 IPC. As the case was pending the parties were referred to Mediation Centre for settlement but did not succeed. Thereafter, as recorded in the Order dated 23.09.2015, with the intervention of the Court the parties agreed for a Settlement and MOU dated 23.09.2015 was entered whereby the parties agreed for quashing/withdrawal of the 4 pending cases out of which 2 were filed by the Petitioner, while the other two were filed by the Respondents.
10. It was observed in the case of Jaibir & Ors. (Supra) in the context of Section 498A/406/34 IPC that Settlement is a complete package and the complainant cannot be allowed to turn around and oppose the Petition after he has agreed for quashing of the proceedings. The Legislature has amended Section 89 of the CPC in the year 2002. There has been an all round attempt by the Legislature and Judiciary as well as the Executive to promote the settlement of disputes through the process of mediation. Therefore, once the disputes between the par
