Manvee@Manvi Mishra & ANR. v. State NCT Of Delhi & ANR.
$~29 & 30 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 8417/2025 & CRL.M.A. 35115/2025 CRL.M.A. 35116/2025 SHUBH PRASAD .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Ram Kamal Prasad, Adv versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.
SI Rekha Chauhan, PS- Pandav Nagar.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar & Mr. Pankaj Kashyap, Advs.
+ CRL.M.C. 8440/2025 & CRL.M.A. 35253/2025 CRL.M.A. 35254/2025 MANVEE@MANVI MISHRA & ANR.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar & Mr. Pankaj Kashyap, Advs.
versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.
SI Rekha Chauhan, PS- Pandav Nagar.
Mr. Ram Kamal Prasad, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R
% 15.05.2026 1.
The present petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"] (corresponding to Section 482 of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) seek quashing of cross-FIRs, being FIR No. 17/2024 dated 07.01.2024, registered under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ["IPC"] (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8417/2025) and FIR No. 650/2023 dated 27.09.2023 under Sections 323/354/509/506/34 of the IPC (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8440/2025), alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. Both FIRs were registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar, District East, Delhi. 2.
Issue notice.
Mr.
Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8417/2025, and Mr. Ram Kamal Prasad, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8440/2025. 3.
The parties are present in Court and identified by their counsel and the Investigating Officer ["IO"].
4.
In FIR No. 650/2023, it is alleged that on 21.09.2023 at about 4:50 PM, a dispute arose between neighbours regarding the parking/movement of complainant's scooty in Shashi Garden, Delhi. It is alleged that the accused and 2-3 other persons, assaulted the complainant, pushed him, and caused injuries during the altercation. The complainant further alleged that accused - Manvee slapped and punched him, and that the other accused persons also threatened him with dire consequences. 5.
In FIR No. 17/2024, it is alleged that on 07.01.2024 at about 11:15 A.M., while the complainant was out for a morning walk near Karbala Road, her neighbour - Shubh Prasad, stopped her on the suspicion that she was taking his photographs. It is alleged that the accused snatched her The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
mobile phone to check it and, while returning the phone, touched her inappropriately. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 17/2024 was registered on 07.01.2024.
6.
Upon completion of investigation, chargesheets were filed & the criminal cases are pending before the Magistrate's Court, at the stage of arguments on charge.
7.
During the pendency of the case, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 08.09.2025. The parties further agreed not to enter each other's property/parking area, not to use abusive language, and not to file unnecessary complaints or cases against one another.
8.
In light of the aforesaid, the parties have approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIRs, alongwith consequential proceedings.
9.
Learned counsel for the parties submit before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without force, fraud or coercion, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
10.
Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the parties are residing in the same neighbourhood and wish to bury the hatchet. Respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8417/2025 also confirms before the Court that the allegations under Section 354 of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding.
11.
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, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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. 12.
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, 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-and-fast category can be prescribed."2 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.
2 Emphasis supplied.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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.
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 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.
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."4 13.
In the present case, the parties are neighbours residing in the same locality and the proceedings arise out of personal disputes and altercations between them. The parties continue to reside in the same neighbourhood and have amicably resolved all their disputes by way of the Settlement Deed. Respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8417/2025 has also affirmed before this Court that the allegations under Section 354 of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding and that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The disputes between the parties are essentially private in nature and do not involve any overriding public interest which would warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings despite the settlement.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose, and the possibility of conviction appears remote and bleak. Permitting the proceedings to continue would therefore amount to an unnecessary prolongation of litigation and a needless expenditure of judicial time and public resources.
14.
In view of the foregoing, the petitions are allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 17/2024 dated 07.01.2024 for offences punishable under 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.
Sections 354 of the IPC (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8417/2025) and FIR No. 650/2023 dated 27.09.2023 for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/509/506/34 of the IPC (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8440/2025), alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 15.
The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 16.
The petitions, alongwith the pending applications, are 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.