Nitish Singh @ Nitis Singh & Anr. vs State Of Nct Delhi & Anr.

$~143
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010150712025
+
CRL.M.C. 1968/2025
NITISH SINGH @ NITIS SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Mahima Ahuja, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mr. Mayank Chaudhary,
Mohd. Naved, Advs.
Ms. Shivam Mehrotra, Adv. for R-2
along with R-2 in person (through
v/c)
SI Kusum, PS Connaught Place.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeks quashing of FIR No.120/2023 dated
18.07.2023 registered at P.S. Connaught Place, under Sections 354A/509 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the proceedings emanating
therefrom.
2. The respondent no.2 was employed as a Counselor at an educational
institute during the period between September, 2022 - July, 2023. She made
allegations of inappropriate conduct and unjustified penalization against the
petitioner no.1, and of inaction on her complaints and withholding of her
dues against petitioner no.2.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1968/2025 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:24:10

3. The petitioner no.1 was the immediate superior of the respondent no.2
at the relevant time. The petitioner no.2 is the founder of the concerned
establishment.
4. It is pointed out that a Settlement Agreement dated 04.02.2025 has
been executed between the parties and is appended as Annexure P-5 to the
present petition. The same reads as under:

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1968/2025 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:24:10

5. The respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit which states as under:


6. The respondent no.2 has appeared virtually and submits that she has
re-married and does not wish to pursue the matter. She further submits that
she has accepted the apology tendered by the petitioners and given that she
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1968/2025 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:24:10

wishes to move past this incident, she is not desirous of pursuing her
complaint.
7. Although, allegations of harassment of a woman at the workplace are
not to be taken lightly, however, it is noticed, that in the present case the
allegations arose in the course of employment and involved dispute/s
pertaining to salaries and dues. The said disputes come to an end.
8. The Trial in the matter is also yet to begin.
9. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme
Court has 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
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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1968/2025 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:24:10

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.

”
10. The Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022)
15 SCC 44, while quashing an FIR in a case filed under section 376 IPC
made the following observations:
“15. In both the cases, though the charge-sheets have been filed, the
charges are yet to be framed and as such,
the trial has not yet
commenced. It is further to be noted that since Respondent 2 herself is
not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is
permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If
the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding
one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.”

11. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Karan Moolchandani v. State of
NCT of Delhi , CRL.M.C. 5159/2025, decided on 01.08.2025, while dealing
with an FIR registered under Sections 354A/354D/509 IPC, arising out of
allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace, held as under:
“8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties
have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in
continuing with the present FIR no. 252/2022 registered on
19.05.2022 under sections 354(A)/354(D)/509 at PS Naraina and all
the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.”
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1968/2025 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:24:10

12. In the circumstances, the present petition is allowed.
13. FIR No.120/2023 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed.
14. Since considerable judicial time and public resources have been
consumed in pursuing the subject complaint, the petitioners shall pay costs
of Rs.25,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
(DHCLSC). The proof of payment of costs shall be filed with the registry
within a period of four weeks from today.
15. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.


SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 15, 2026/ cl





Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1968/2025 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:24:10