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) 46962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANKUR PLASTIC VS. SHRI RAMESH BATRA & ANR.
CRL.M.C. 9207/2025



##PAGE1##

$~22

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 9207/2025

ROHTASH SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Anshuman Goswami and Mr.

K.K. Bharti, Advs.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with

SI Jaiveer Kumar, PS. Palam Village.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023

seeking quashing of FIR No.400/2023 under Sections 288/304A IPC

registered at Police Station Palam Village and all consequential proceedings

emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a

settlement.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Kiran Bairwa, learned APP for the State accepts

notice.

3. Petitioner no.1, as well as, respondent nos. 2(complainant) and 3

(deceased wife of Diwakar Ram), who are present in Court, have been

identified bytheir respective counsel, as well as, bythe Investigating Officer

SI Jaiveer Kumar, PS. Palam Village.

4. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner no.1 was constructing his

house and for some electrical work he had engaged petitioner no.4/Prateek,

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 06/02/2026 at 05:40:46

##PAGE2##

as contractor for the said electrical work. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and

deceased Diwakar Ram was also working for petitioner no.4. When the

vibrator machine was installed by the deceased Diwakar Ram, immediately

he was electrocuted on account of which he died. The dispute between the

parties also led to the registration of present FIR.

5. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be labourers, whereas petitioner

no.4 is a petty contractor, and they do not have any wherewithal to pay for

the compensation. Therefore, it is the petitioner no.1, who is compensating

the respondent no. 3, the wife of deceased.

6. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a

settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Settlement

dated 09.08.2023, which is annexed as Annexure A to the present petition.

7. It is a term of the settlement between the parties that petitioner no.1

shall pay a total sum of Rs. 4.08 lacs to respondent no.3 towards full and

final settlement of all her claims on account of compensation etc. The entire

settlement amount has alreadybeen paid by petitioner no.1 to the respondent

no.3 in the manner as mentioned in the settlement.

8. The receipt of entire amount of Rs. 4.08 lacs is acknowledged by

respondent no.3, who is present in court.

9. Respondent no.3, on a query posed by the Court, affirms the factum

of settlement and states that she is satisfied with the compensation. She

further states that she has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

10. At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of the

Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303:

(SCC p. 340, para 58)

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 06/02/2026 at 05:40:46

##PAGE3##

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having

regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the

victim has been settled although the offences are not

compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of

criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in

the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an

end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the

ultimate guiding factor.”

11. In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances of

conviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal

proceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an exercise in

futility.

12. It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the

other proce

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