Tenant’s Settlement Ends Threat Case Against Woman in Landlord Dispute: Delhi HC

Respondent no. 2 alleged that the petitioner and her co-accused, who were his landlords, removed and damaged his belongings, threatened him and his parents, and that his laptop was missing.

The FIR was registered under Sections 448, 380, 427, 506 and 34 IPC.

The trial court discharged the accused of the theft charge after the complainant stated that he had found the laptop, and later acquitted them of the charges under Sections 448 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC.

The petitioner’s remaining charge was under Section 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC; the co-accused landlords had been convicted of that offence following plea bargaining and released after admonition.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a voluntary settlement with respondent no. 2, who stated that he had no objection to quashing the FIR.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings, corresponding to the power under Section 482 CrPC; that power is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences and may extend to non-compoundable offences, but must be exercised sparingly and with caution to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, whether it is private or has a serious societal impact, and whether conviction is remote or continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, further requires consideration of the offence’s effect on society, the seriousness of any injury, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the accused’s conduct.

The Court also relied on Kamal Kishore @ KP & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., CRL.M.C. No. 4350/2015, which recognised that proceedings under Section 506-II IPC may be quashed on compromise in the exercise of inherent powers.

The Court treated the dispute as private and personal, arising from a landlord–tenant relationship, and found that the parties had voluntarily resolved it.

The more serious property-related charges had already ended in discharge or acquittal, leaving only the Section 506(II)/34 IPC charge; the proceedings against the co-accused had also concluded.

Applying the principles governing quashing of non-compoundable offences, the Court found that the case did not involve a heinous offence or one with the kind of societal impact that would preclude quashing.

Respondent no. 2 reaffirmed in Court that the settlement was voluntary and that he did not wish to pursue the matter; in these circumstances, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

The petition was disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court.