Poonam Tyagi vs State(N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~98
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 28.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010267502026
+ CRL.M.C. 4479/2026
POONAM TYAGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ayush Bodwal, Mr. Piyush Tyagi
and Mr. Sushil Yadav, Advs. along
with petitioner.
versus

STATE(N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
along with Mr. Mohd. Naved and Mr.
Mayank Chaudhary, Advs. for State.
Mr. Chandra Kant Kumar, Adv. for
R-2 along with R-2 in person.
SI Rohit, PS Uttam Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )

1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeks quashing of FIR No. 418/2014
dated 25.04.2014, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi, under
Sections 448/380/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and
all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The present petition has been filed on the basis of a settlement arrived
at between the petitioner and respondent no.2.
3. The factual conspectus is that the respondent no.2 alleged in the
aforesaid FIR that his landlords, along with the petitioner, threw out and

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:40:13
CRL.M.C. 4479/2026 Page 1 of 7

damaged his belongings and threatened him and his parents. It was further
alleged that his laptop was missing.
4. By order dated 12.03.2020, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, discharged all the
accused, including the petitioner, of the offence punishable under Section
380/34 IPC, upon noticing that in his subsequent statement dated 27.04.2014
the complainant had admitted having found the laptop. Charge was,
however, directed to be framed against all the three accused under Sections
448/427/506(II)/34 IPC.
5. On 17.02.2024, the statement of respondent no.2 came to be recorded
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-West District, Dwarka
Courts, Delhi, to the effect that the matter stood amicably settled between
the parties.
6. It is pointed out during the course of hearing that the co-accused

landlords (Ram Kumar Sharma and Kamlesh Sharma) were convicted for
offence punishable under Section 506(II)/34 IPC by order dated 17.02.2024,
upon an application for plea bargaining filed by them being allowed, and
were released after due admonition.
7. Thereafter, on 09.03.2024, all the accused including the petitioner
were acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 read with
Section 34 IPC.
8. Consequently, the only charge which now survives against the
petitioner is the one under Section 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC. The
proceedings qua the co-accused Ram Kumar Sharma and Kamlesh Sharma
stand concluded.
9. Respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit stating that he has settled the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:40:13
CRL.M.C. 4479/2026 Page 2 of 7

dispute voluntarily and that he has no objection to the quashing of the
subject FIR. The said affidavit reads as under:-

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the dispute
is a private one between the tenant and his landlords. Further, the offences
under Sections 448 and 427 IPC stand compounded, and the petitioner
stands acquitted in respect thereof. The petitioner also stands discharged of
the offence under Section 380 IPC. The only surviving charge is under
Section 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC, arising out of the same incident.
11. The other co-accused have already been convicted and released after
admonition pursuant to the plea bargaining allowed on 17.02.2024.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:40:13
CRL.M.C. 4479/2026 Page 3 of 7

12. This Court is conscious that the offence punishable under Section
506(II) IPC is non-compoundable. However, the power of this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash criminal
proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding conferred on a
criminal court and is not limited by it.
13. 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 as under:-
“ 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in 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. … 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. … In other words, the
High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary
to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between
the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and
if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.
”
14. The principles were thereafter crystallized in Narinder Singh v. State
of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466. In paragraph 29, the Supreme Court observed

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:40:13
CRL.M.C. 4479/2026 Page 4 of 7

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. 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.
29.5. 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.
”
15. The aforesaid position has since been reaffirmed by the Supreme
Court in Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022) 14 SCC 531, in the
following terms:-
“ 12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of
the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their
dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification
of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise
of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the
offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably
evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body
of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:40:13
CRL.M.C. 4479/2026 Page 5 of 7

ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker
with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal
justice system.
xxx
19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 CrPC
where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the
parties in respect of offences “compoundable” within the statutory
framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court
under Section 482 CrPC or vested in this Court under Article 142
of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 CrPC . Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of
wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the
society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
the victim; and
19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.
”
16. A coordinate bench of this Court in Kamal Kishore @ KP & Ors. v.

The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. , CRL.M.C. No. 4350/2015,
decided on 05.11.2015, observed that even though an offence under Section
506-Part II IPC is non-compoundable, the High Court can use its inherent
powers under Section 482 CrPC to accept a compromise and quash the
proceedings. The relevant extract reads as under:
“ 5. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 506-II IPC is
not compoundable, however, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and in exercise of the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this
Court has power to accept the compromise.
”
17. Applying the aforesaid dicta to the facts of the present case, this Court
finds that the offences in question do not fall within the category of heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity, or offences such as murder, rape

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:40:13
CRL.M.C. 4479/2026 Page 6 of 7

or dacoity; the dispute is overwhelmingly private and personal in nature,
having arisen out of a landlord-tenant relationship; the parties have resolved
their entire dispute voluntarily; the proceedings qua the co-accused already
stand concluded; and the trial is at a nascent stage. Considering the
circumstances, no useful purpose shall be served by continuing the
prosecution of the petitioner. There is, accordingly, no impediment to
acceding to the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the subject FIR qua
her.
18. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the
concerned Investigating Officer (IO), who is also present in Court.
19. During the course of hearing, the parties again affirm that they have
settled the matter out of their own free will and volition. It is categorically
submitted by respondent no.2 that he is not desirous of pursuing the matter
further.
20. In the circumstances, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly,
FIR No.418/2014, dated 25.04.2014, registered at PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi,
under Section 448/380/427/506/34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, stand quashed qua the petitioner.
21. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
22. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court.


SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026/r,sd


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
15:40:13
CRL.M.C. 4479/2026 Page 7 of 7