$~52, 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 30/2016 and CRL.M.A. 7150/2016 SATISH KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr.Amit gupta and Mr.Vivek Kumar, Advocates versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Ms.Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with Ms.Yusra, Advocate with SI Shyam + CRL.A. 126/2016 REENA .....Appellant Through: Mr.Amit gupta and Mr.Vivek Kumar, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms.Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with Ms.Yusra, Advocate with SI Shyam CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 05.12.2025

1. The present appeals have been preferred to assail and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2015 and the order on sentence dated 30.11.2015, whereby both appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/120-B/201/203/34 IPC. Appellant Satish was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 307 IPC, in default whereof he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month, under section 120 B IPC, he was directed to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Reena was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 307 IPC, in default whereof she was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, under section 120B IPC, she was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. For the offence under section 201 IPC she is directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years, with a fine for Rs. 2,000/- in default thereof, simple imprisonment for 7 days. For the offence under section 203 IPC, she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year, with a fine of Rs. 5,00/- in default thereof, simple imprisonment for 3 days. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit of 428 Cr.P.C. was given to both the appellants. 2. The sentences of the appellants were suspended by this Court of appellant Reena on 12.02.2016, and of appellant Satish on 09.03.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present matter arises out of a domestic and matrimonial discord between appellant Reena and the injured/victim, Om Prakash (respondent No.2 herein), who are husband and wife. It is submitted that the incident occurred in the backdrop of personal differences within the family, all of which now stand resolved. Counsel further submits that the parties have resumed cohabitation, are living together, and have children as well. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection to the compounding/disposing of the FIR or the conviction, and does not wish the criminal proceedings to continue.

4. The complainant/victim is present in person and affirms to the factum of arriving at a settlement with the appellants and submits that he has no objection in case the offence is compounded.

5. Pertinently, the offences involved in the present matter, including Section 307 IPC, are non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in matters wherein non-compoundable offences are involved is well recognized. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 observed that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or control the powers vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that the High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings/FIR, even if non-compoundable offences are involved. The said view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors.³ and Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr.4

6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.⁵, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between compounding of offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the latter may be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of jus