Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
BABU LAL MEENA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1908/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Ms. Savita Rani
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Mehla, SI Sukhpal Singh, Mr. Vivek Pathak, Ms. Urvashi Pal
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences when parties reach a settlement, considering justice and the nature of the allegations.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - Offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is non-compoundable while offence under Section 115(2) of BNS is compoundable - High Courts can quash non-compoundable offences when there is a settlement between the parties. (Paras 6, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings conferred by Section 528 is distinct from powers related to compounding offences - Must consider ends of justice and whether the continuation of proceedings would cause oppression. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a school teacher, was accused of assaulting a minor student. The parties have resolved their disputes amicably through a settlement deed, with the mother of the minor confirming no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The High Court quashed the FIR considering the absence of lasting harm and the voluntary nature of the settlement.
Issues: The applicable nature of the offences concerning the possibility of quashing based on a settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the facts pointed towards a civil character case suitable for quashing the proceedings given the lack of serious injury.
Result: The impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of the petition and initial allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. settlement between the parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. nature of offences concerning non-compoundability. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. guidelines on quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final judgement and directives. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
O R D E R
% 11.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, [1“ BNS S ”] (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [2“Cr.P.C.”]) seeks quashing of FIR No. 120/2025, [3“theimpugnedFIR”] dated 21st February, 2025, registered under Section 115 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023, [4“ BNS ”] and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)5 Act, 2015 at P.S. Khajuri Khas and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
CRL.M.C.1908/2025 Page1of7
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was received on 18th February, 2025, alleging that the Petitioner, a school teacher, had assaulted Respondent No. 2, a minor student, resulting in minor bleeding from his left ear. The said complaint led to the registration of the impugned FIR.
3. The parties have now resolved all their disputes and differences amicably, of their own volition and free will, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. A Settlement Deed dated 11th March, 2025, has been executed by Petitioner No. 1 and the mother of Respondent No. 2. As per the terms of the settlement, the mother of Respondent No. 2 agreed not to pursue the impugned FIR against the Petitioner. A copy of the Settlement Deed is on record.
4. In light of the amicable resolution and the settlement between the parties, they now jointly seek quashing of the impugned FIR through the present petition.
5. The parties present before the court are duly identified by the Investigating Officer. The mother of Respondent No. 2 confirms the terms of the settlement and gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR.
6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offence under Section 75 of JJ Act is non-compoundable while offence under Section 115 (2) of BNS is compoundable by the person to whom the hurt is caused.
7. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly 482 of Cr.P.C.), can compound
5“JJAct”
CRL.M.C.1908/2025 Page2of7 offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement betweenthe parties and exercisingits power under Section482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction tocontinuewiththecriminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is tobeexercised sparinglyandwithcaution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, theguidingfactor insuchcases wouldbetosecure:
(i)ends of justice,or (ii)toprevent abuseof theprocess of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opiniononeither of theaforesaidtwoobjectives. \
29.3. Such a power is not to be
