Delhi High Court

QUASHING OF CROSS-FIRS PERMISSIBLE UPON AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF PRIVATE DISPUTES BETWEEN CLOSELY RELATED PARTIES.

Manmeet Singh Saggu & Ors. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: May 18, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The court heard two connected petitions filed by closely related family members seeking the quashing of cross-FIRs (No. 527/2021 and 528/2021) registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar

Source reference: p. 2, para. 1-2

FIR 527/2021 was registered by a daughter-in-law alleging threats and attempted sexual assault by the petitioners

Source reference: p. 2, para. 4

FIR 528/2021 was registered by a paternal aunt alleging verbal abuse and assault during a scuffle

Source reference: p. 2, para. 5

Although charge sheets were filed in both cases, the parties subsequently entered into a Compromise Deed dated April 25, 2026, with the help of community members

Source reference: p. 2, para. 6-8

The complainants appeared before the Court and confirmed they entered the settlement voluntarily

Source reference: p. 3, para. 9-10
02

Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases based on a private settlement between closely related parties

Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 6, 12
03

Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [formerly Section 482 of the CrPC], which grants the High Court inherent powers to pass orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice

Source reference: p. 3, para. 13

The principle that where matrimonial or family disputes are amicably settled, and the nature of the allegations is such that a conviction is unlikely, the proceedings may be quashed to achieve the ends of justice

Source reference: p. 3, para. 12
04

Reasoning

The Court observed that the parties are closely related and have resolved all disputes with the intervention of society members

Source reference: p. 2, para. 3, 6

By examining the nature of the allegations and the fact that the complainants expressed "no objection" to the quashing, the Court reasoned that continuing the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and would not serve any useful purpose

Source reference: p. 3, para. 10, 12

To ensure the settlement was bona fide, the Court verified the identities of the parties through the Investigating Officer and confirmed that the compromise was reached without coercion or influence

Source reference: p. 3, para. 9-10
05

Holding

The Court answered the issue in the affirmative and quashed FIR Nos. 527/2021 and 528/2021, along with all consequential proceedings, to secure the ends of justice

The quashing was made subject to the petitioners in each case depositing a cost of Rs. 30,000/- (totaling Rs. 60,000/-) to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) West District within four weeks

Source reference: p. 3, para. 14

Proof of deposit and original affidavits must be submitted to the Trial Court within six weeks

Source reference: p. 3, para. 15
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Manmeet Singh Saggu & Ors.vsThe State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi High Court · May 18, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment