Phool Chand And Others vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr

$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 04.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011107282025
+ CRL.M.C. 6807/2026
PHOOL CHAND AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Shirish
Yaduvanshi and Mr. Jitender Sahay,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State.
SI Lucky
Mr. Praveen Southey in person
(through v/c)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A.28433/2026 ( seeking condonation of delay of 588 days in re-filing
the petition)
1. The petitioners seek condonation of delay in re-filing the petition.
2. The reason given is that they are labourers and could not arrange the
requisite funds referred to in the Settlement Agreement arrived at between
the parties.
3. Considering that the main petition is founded on a settlement, the
application is allowed. The delay in re-filing stands condoned.
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026
4. The petitioners invoke Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) [corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973] and seek quashing of FIR No.210/2011, dated
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 1 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27

21.10.2011, registered at PS Ranjit Nagar, under Sections 452/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”),
and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
5. The petition is founded on a Memorandum of Understanding dated
17.12.2022 entered into between the parties.
6. The factual conspectus is that FIR No.210/2011 was registered on the
complaint of respondent no.2, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. There was
a pre-existing property dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and
respondent no.2 and his father on the other, who are neighbours. It was
alleged by respondent no.2 (the complainant) that the petitioners had raised
unauthorised construction adjoining his property bearing No.3084, Gali
No.7, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi, and that on 01.09.2011. They entered the said
premises, assaulted and abused him, and made caste-based remarks against
him.
7. Chargesheet has been filed pursuant to the FIR, under Sections 452/34
IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(ii) of the SC/ST Act.
8. It is stated that there were also certain civil suits pending in which
petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2, and the father of respondent no.2 were
parties. The said civil suits are stated to have been disposed of.
9. The Memorandum of Understanding, on the basis of which the
present petition has been filed, reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 2 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 3 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute, at its root,
was a property dispute between neighbours, which has since been settled
pursuant to mediation and by way of the aforesaid MOU.
11. Respondent no.2, who appears virtually, raises no objection to the
present petition and reiterates that he has no objection to the concerned FIR
being quashed.
12. The concerned Investigating Officer (IO) is present in Court. He has
identified the petitioners and respondent no.2.
13. The Court notices that the FIR discloses offences under the SC/ST
Act. No doubt, this Court must be circumspect while considering a joint plea
for quashing of an FIR containing such allegations.
14. However, in the present case, it appears that the circumstances which

led to the registration of the FIR arose out of a civil dispute. The parties who
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 4 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27

are present in person have reiterated, during the course of hearing, that the
genesis of the incident was a dispute between neighbours concerning
construction and property, which now stands resolved.
15. It is emphasized that the settlement is voluntary. Respondent no.2 is
himself an advocate. As noticed, he has affirmed the settlement on affidavit
and has confirmed during the course of hearing that he has entered into the
settlement of his own free will.
16. It is also noticed that the concerned incident took place more than 15
years ago. No subsequent incident between the parties has been alleged.
17. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme
Court observed 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. 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 5 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27

quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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.
”
18. The said principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it has been held 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 6 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27

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.
”
19. Insofar as offences under the SC/ST Act are concerned, the Supreme
Court in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022) 13 SCC 635, has
held as under:
“16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special
statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely
circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 7 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27

enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment
against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The
Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite
undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of
upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act
has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional
safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the
Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members
of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and
rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.
17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the
offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is
primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence
has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or
where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an
abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to
quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a
prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if
the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act
would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in
question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is
covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or
the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.

”
20. In the totality of circumstances, considering the dicta laid down by the

Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and
Ramawatar (supra), there is no impediment to allowing the present petition.
21. Accordingly, FIR No.210/2011, registered at PS Ranjit Nagar under
Sections 452/34 IPC and Section 3 SC/ST Act, and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, stand quashed.
22. Considering that considerable judicial time and State resources have
been consumed on account of the aforesaid FIR, the petitioners agree to pay
costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 8 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27

(DHCLSC). It is undertaken that the same shall be deposited within a period
of four weeks from today.
23. The said undertaking is taken on record.
24. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/ cl,sd



Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6807/2026 Page 9 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:48:27