SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MRS SUJATA KUMAR VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
CRL.M.C. 9260/2025



##PAGE1##

$~12

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 9260/2025, CRL.M.A. 38651/2025

GAURAV CHAUDHARY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rohish Arora, Advocate.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for

State with SI Vivek Kr., PS-GK-I.

Mr. Shivanshu Gusain and Mr.

Anirudh Sharma, Advocates for R-2,

3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 24.12.2025

1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, “BNSS” (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, “CrPC”) seeks quashing of FIR No. 339/2020 dated 24th August,

2020,, “impugned FIR” registered under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” at P.S.

Greater Kailash, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating

therefrom.

2. The prosecution case is that in the early hours of 25th August, 2020, a

Scorpio vehicle allegedly struck the entrance gate of house No. E-30,

CRL.M.C. 9260/2025 Page 1 of 5

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 19:31:19

##PAGE2##

Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, belonging to the Complainant/Respondent

No. 2, Manish Arora, causing damage to the gate and other fixtures, and it is

alleged that the security guard, Dilip Singh (Respondent No. 3), sustained

minor injuries while moving away from the vehicle. On receipt of DD No.

08A and on the basis of the written complaint of the complainant, the

impugned FIR was registered under Section 279 IPC. During investigation,

the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-12-CL-1018 was traced and seized,

the Petitioner was identified as the driver, and upon completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed Sections 279/336 IPC.

3. The parties submit that during the pendency of the criminal

proceedings, the dispute has been amicably resolved before the Trial Court.

On 4th June, 2025, statements of Respondent No. 2, and Respondent No. 3,

were recorded by the Trial Court, wherein they acknowledged that the

matter had been settled with the Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 received a

sum of INR 1,25,000/-, and Respondent No. 3 received a sum of INR

50,000/-, towards full and final settlement. Both Respondents No. 2 and 3

have undertaken to cooperate with the Petitioner in seeking quashing of the

impugned FIR and have expressed no objection to the same. Copies of the

order dated 4th June, 2025 and the statements so recorded have been placed

on record.

4. Respondents No. 2 and 3, appearing in person and duly identified by

the Investigating Officer, give their no objection to the quashing of the

impugned FIR. They have further confirmed the receipt of the full and final

settlement amount from the Petitioner.

5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the

offence under Section 279 IPC is non-compoundable, Section 337 IPC is

CRL.M.C. 9260/2025 Page 2 of 5

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 19:31:19

##PAGE3##

compoundable in certain cases.

6. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under

Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate

cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the

parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest

is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

& Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held as follows:

“11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353

of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if

the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an

exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute

between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top