Delhi HC Quashes Two Men’s Threat-And-Conspiracy Case After Complainant Settles, Leaving Main Accused’s Rape Trial Untouched

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the parties’ settlement, although the charge under Section 120B IPC was non-compoundable.

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

FIR No. 314/2020 and all proceedings arising from it were quashed qua the petitioners.

The petitioners were directed to pay costs of ₹1,00,000 collectively: ₹50,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and ₹50,000 to the Delhi High Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.

The order was expressly limited to the petitioners and does not affect the trial of Vikas Kumar Mittal or confer any benefit on the other co-accused.

01Facts

FIR No. 314/2020 was registered under Sections 376, 328, 354(A), 506 and 509 IPC against Vikas Kumar Mittal.

p. 2

A supplementary chargesheet later named the petitioners and another accused under Sections 506, 509 and 120B IPC, alleging that they conspired to threaten the complainant in Vikas Kumar Mittal’s name.

p. 2

The Sessions Court separated their trial from Vikas Kumar Mittal’s, noting that the allegations against them had no connection with the alleged rape.

pp. 2–3

The petitioners and complainant entered into a settlement; the complainant affirmed that it was voluntary.

p. 4, 6

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS, equivalent to Section 482 CrPC, while an application to compound the offences was pending before the trial court.

p. 1, 4

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the parties’ settlement, although the charge under Section 120B IPC was non-compoundable.

pp. 4, 7–9

ii.Whether quashing should be confined to the petitioners without affecting the proceedings against the other accused.

pp. 9–10

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pari materia with Section 482 CrPC, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

p. 1 · p. 9

Section 320 CrPC governs compounding; the judgment treated the charges under Sections 506 and 509 IPC as compoundable, while Section 120B IPC was non-compoundable.

p. 3

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed following settlement where the nature and circumstances of the case make continuation futile and quashing would serve the ends of justice; serious offences such as rape ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on settlement.

pp. 7–8

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, directs the High Court to consider the ends of justice, abuse of process, and whether the prospect of conviction is remote.

pp. 8–9

Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, confirms that the inherent power is broad but must be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

p. 9

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 173 Section 223 Section 320

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376 Section 328 Section 506 Section 509 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioners were not charged with rape or any sexual offence; following separation of trials, the allegations against them were limited to Sections 506, 509 and 120B IPC.

pp. 3–4

It considered those allegations non-heinous, observed that the offences were largely compoundable, and concluded that the non-compoundable conspiracy charge should not prevent relief where the complainant had voluntarily settled with the petitioners.

pp. 3–4, 6, 9–10

Applying the cited authorities, the Court found no impediment to quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in the interests of justice.

pp. 7–10