Indra Mani Tiwari v. The State Gnct Of Delhi

$~69 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ INDRA MANI TIWARI .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh and Mr.

Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.

Ms. Bhawna Baghel, Advocate for R-2/complainant, with R-2 (on VC).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 15.05.2026 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 622/2014 dated 03.09.2014, registered at Police Station Gazipur, District East, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 354A/354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled. 2.

The petitioner is present in Court and identified by his counsel and the Investigating Officer ["IO"]. Respondent No. 2 is present through video conference and has been duly identified by her counsel and by the IO.

3.

The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

2, who is a neighbour of the petitioner.

4.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that while she was passing near Lal Bahadur Institute, Mayur Vihar Phase-III on 03.09.2014, alongwith her friend, the petitioner, in an inebriated state, misbehaved with her by touching her inappropriately. It was further alleged that when she chased and apprehended the petitioner, he pushed her inappropriately and attempted to flee from the spot. On the basis of her written complaint, the police found a prima facie case under Sections 354/354A of the IPC and registered the FIR.

5.

Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the matter is presently pending before the Magistrate's Court, which is next listed on 25.07.2026 for prosecution evidence. 6.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 22.05.2025, to put a quietus to the dispute and to move on with their lives. The settlement does not involve any monetary consideration. 7.

Learned counsel for the parties submit before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without any force, fraud or coercion, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. They further state that the parties no longer reside in the same neighbourhood and wish to move on with their lives. 8.

Respondent No. 2, who is present through videoconference, states that the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding stemming from an altercation with the petitioner, and she has no objection to quashing of the present FIR.

9.

In light of the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

seeking quashing of impugned FIR, alongwith consequential proceedings.

10.

Although the offences under Sections 354/354A of IPC are noncompoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

11.

The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has held as follows:

"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.

No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.

However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

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

where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."2 Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

3, the Supreme Court has also 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 between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal 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 to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2.

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

2 Emphasis supplied.

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

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

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."4 12.

In the present case, the parties were known to each other and resided in the same locality. The proceedings arise out of an incident relating to alleged misbehaviour in a public place. The parties no longer reside in the same neighbourhood and have amicably resolved their disputes. Respondent No. 2 has affirmed that the allegations under Sections 354/354A of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding and that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. No overriding public interest would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings, which emanate from a private dispute between neighbours, to continue, particularly when the matter stands fully settled. In light of these facts, it is evident that continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to result in any conviction and would serve no practical purpose, amounting 4 Emphasis supplied.

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

merely to a formal exercise that would unnecessarily burden the administration of justice and expend public resources. 13.

In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 622/2014 dated 03.09.2014, registered at Police Station Gazipur, District East, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 354A/354 of the IPC, alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.

14.

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15.

The petition, alongwith pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J MAY 15, 2026 'B/JM'/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.