Delhi HC Quashes 15-Year-Old SC/ST Act Case After Neighbours Voluntarily Settle Property Dispute

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 210/2011, registered at PS Ranjit Nagar following respondent no. 2’s complaint.

Respondent no. 2, a member of a Scheduled Caste, alleged that the petitioners entered his premises, assaulted and abused him, and made caste-based remarks amid a pre-existing dispute concerning property and construction between neighbours.

The chargesheet invoked Sections 452/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(ii) of the SC/ST Act.

The parties later entered into a settlement through a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17 December 2022; respondent no. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and raised no objection to quashing.

The Court also condoned a 588-day delay in re-filing the petition.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from statutory compounding and must be exercised cautiously.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, establish that quashing may be appropriate in cases with an overwhelmingly civil or private character where the parties have settled, the prospect of conviction is remote, and continuation would cause injustice, but generally not for heinous offences or offences with serious societal impact.

Under Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635, proceedings under the SC/ST Act require particular circumspection, but may be quashed where the dispute is primarily private or civil, the alleged offence was not committed on account of the victim’s caste, or continuation would abuse the process of law, provided the Act’s protective purpose is not undermined.

The Court acknowledged that the FIR alleged offences under the SC/ST Act and therefore required a circumspect approach.

It nevertheless found that the incident arose from a property and construction dispute between neighbours, that the dispute had been resolved through a voluntary settlement, and that respondent no. 2—an advocate—confirmed the settlement and his consent to quashing.

The incident was more than 15 years old, and no subsequent incident was alleged.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Ramawatar, the Court concluded that the case was predominantly civil in character and that quashing would not undermine the SC/ST Act’s objectives.

The petitioners undertook to pay costs of ₹25,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks; the undertaking was recorded, and the petition was disposed of.