Mahkar Singh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
%
#
CNR No. DLHC010268852026
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026
+
MAHKAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aryan Pathak and Mr. Bharat
Shandilya, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR & ORS......Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State.
ASI Manvir Singh, PS Gokulpur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( Oral )
1. Issue notice. Learned APP accepts notice for the State.
2. The respondent no. 2 (complainant) is present in person.
3. The petitioner, via the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( pari materia to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeks quashing of FIR No.
202/2017, dated 22.05.2017, registered at P.S. Gokul Puri, North East
(Delhi), under Sections 452/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed,
dated 03.02.2025, reached at between the petitioner (accused) and
respondent no. 2 (complainant). The same has been appended as Annexure
P-3 to the present petition.
4. Respondent no. 2 (complainant) in the aforesaid FIR alleges that,
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
about 11:30 PM on 21.05.2017, the petitioner (sister-in-law’s
husband/accused) broke open the door of the respondent no. 2’s
(complainant’s) house and pointed a pistol/revolver at her husband and
threatened him. It is also alleged that the petitioner (accused) manhandled
and abused respondent no. 2 (complainant).
5. It is further disclosed in the aforesaid FIR that the police reached the
spot and seized the loaded revolver from the petitioner (accused). The
license of the pistol/revolver was verified and found genuine. Subsequent
thereto, a chargesheet was filed, in which Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms
Act, 1959 were dropped and, in their place, Section 30 of the Arms Act,
1959 was added.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this was essentially a
family dispute between the parties, who are close relatives, and the same
stands settled.
7. The parties have been identified by the Investigating Officer (IO),
who is present in Court.
8. It transpires that respondent no. 2 (complainant) has cognitive
difficulty; however, she is able to communicate through sign language. She
is accompanied by her husband. It is conveyed that respondent no. 2
(complainant) is desirous of settling the matter. To that effect, she has also
filed an affidavit stating the following:
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
9. The aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement
Agreement/Compromise, dated 03.02.2025, has been placed on record, the
same reads as under:
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
10. The allegation that a pistol was pointed inside a home is a serious one,
as has also been submitted by learned APP. However, in the facts of the
present case, this Court has considered the following circumstances:
a) The parties are close relatives and disputes arose within the
family;
b) No shot was fired, and there was no injury;
c) The revolver was licensed, and the license was found genuine. As
such, the charge is only under Section 30 of the Arms Act for
contravention of a license condition;
d) The parties appear to have settled voluntarily to put a quietus to
the family dispute; and
e) It is noticed that more than nine years have passed since the FIR
and the case is still at the stage of charge.
11. In the light of the stand of the parties and the settlement deed
executed between them, subjecting the parties to trial would be an exercise
in utter futility.
12. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein it has
been held that criminal proceedings arising out of family disputes, where the
wrong is private or personal in nature, and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute, stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing. The
relevant extract reads as under:
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
“ 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.
*
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can
be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any court.
In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard
to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. ”
(emphasis supplied)
13. The said principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , wherein it has been held as
under:
“ 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. ”
(emphasis supplied)
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43
14.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. State , 2015
SCC OnLine Del 11824 , after taking note of both Gian Singh (supra) and
Narinder Singh (supra) , quashed an offence under Section 506 of the IPC
and Section 30 of the Arms Act, based on a compromise reached between
the parties.
15. In terms of the dicta as laid down in the aforesaid judgments, there is
no impediment in allowing the present petition.
16. Accordingly, FIR No. 202/2017, dated 22.05.2017, registered at P.S.
Gokul Puri, North East (Delhi), and all the proceedings emanating
therefrom, stand quashed.
17. Since considerable judicial time and state resources have been
consumed, pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner (accused)
agrees to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee (DHCLSC). Let the same be paid within a period of four (4)
weeks from today. Proof of deposit be filed in the registry of this Court.
18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ cl/vk
CRL.M.C. 4441/2026 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:40:43