Vineet Dahiya v. State Of NCT Of Delhi. Through Sho, Civil Lines & ANR.

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + VINEET DAHIYA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Shivendra Pratap Singh, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI. THROUGH SHO, CIVIL LINES & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Mary Desmal, PS Civil Lines.

Mr. Azad Bainsla, Advocate for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026 1.

Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Azad Bainsla, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 - complainant.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition 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. 446/2022 dated 19.11.2022, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District North, New Delhi, under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

3.

The petitioner had been working as a domestic help in the house of respondent No. 2 for four years prior to the incident. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. The allegation emerging therefrom is that, on 14.11.2022, the petitioner stole a sum of Rs. 35,000/- from the house of respondent No. 2, when nobody was present at the house. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 381 and 174A of the IPC. 4.

The parties have since settled their disputes, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.05.2025. They, therefore, seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

5.

The parties are present on video conference, and are identified by their learned counsel.

6.

Mr. Bainsla states that the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding, and that respondent No. 2 does not wish to press the criminal proceedings. He further states that the parties remain on good terms.

7.

Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 8.

It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC], is empowered to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and where the quashing of such proceedings does not impinge upon any overriding public interest. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], which held as follows:

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

"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, 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 the 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-andfast category can be prescribed." [Emphasis supplied.] Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(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.

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 the 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."

[Emphasis supplied.] 9.

The criminal proceedings in the present case arise out of an employer-employee relationship. The parties have amicably resolved all their inter se disputes, and respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed before this Court that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily. In The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

view of the aforesaid, the likelihood of conviction is remote, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would be an exercise in futility, serving no useful purpose and resulting only in unnecessary consumption of judicial time and public resources. 10.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 446/2022 dated 19.11.2022, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District North, New Delhi, under Section 381 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- by the petitioner. The said amount shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association [A/C No. 15530110179338, IFSC No. UCBA0001553, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch: Delhi High Court], within two weeks from today. The affidavit of compliance shall be filed thereafter. 11.

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 12.

The petition is disposed of in terms of the above. PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 3, 2026 'pv/KA'/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.