In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) dated 07-03-2019 under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on grounds of settlement between the petitioner and respondent 2 (complainant), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan allowed the petition and quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The petitioner was an orphan being looked after by the Missionaries of Charity in Delhi. Respondent 2 and her husband applied to the District Judge, Delhi, for their appointment as her guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (G&W Act), when she was three months old. The application was allowed, and the couple was appointed as the petitioner’s guardians until she attained the age of majority.
Respondent 2 alleged that on 03-02-2019, the petitioner attacked her with a wooden cross when she was praying and that she bit her hands, injured her in the eye, as well as in the abdomen with a knife. Considering that the same was a family matter, respondent 2 did not immediately make a statement to the police, but ultimately made a statement on 16-02-2019, which led to the registration of the said FIR on 07-03-2019.
By an order dated 08-12-2023, the Principal District and Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, framed a charge under Section 307 of the IPC against the petitioner. In cross-examination, respondent 2 stated that she was willing to settle the dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent 2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) wherein it was recorded that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement and that respondent 2 did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. It was also mentioned that the civil suits filed by both parties had been settled and disposed of before the Lok Adalat in 2022.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the charges were for a grievous offence under Section 307 and that the prosecution evidence had already commenced.
The Court stated that even in the case of non-compoundable offences, inherent powers may be exercised, recognised by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash proceedings based on a compromise between the parties. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 688, and Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) 4 SCC 78, the Court found it appropriate to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.
The Court stated that the present was a family dispute and that the relationship between the parties was akin to that of a mother and child. It was noted that respondent 2 had mentioned the dynamics of their relationship, which included rough patches and differences of opinion, but the Court stated that such elements were usual in parent-child relationships.
Further, the Court took note of the affidavit filed by respondent 2 in reply to the present petition, wherein she reiterated the settlement and her decision to forgive the petitioner for the incident. She had also mentioned that she had no objection if the FIR and all proceedings were quashed. Hence, the Court opined that continuing the criminal proceedings despite the forgiveness by respondent 2 would amount to a travesty of justice.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings. However, the Court found it appropriate for the petitioner to undertake a period of community service to be completed within four months, and directed her to report to the Medical Superintendent of St. Stephen’s Hospital Railway Colony on 12-03-2026. The Medical Superintendent was requested to assign her appropriate duties for 30 sessions of three hours each. Lastly, while disposing of the petition, the Court directed the petitioner to place the certificate of compliance before the Court within five months.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Ravi Sharma, Ms. Shrishti Sharma, Mr. Pulkit Luthra, Mr. Harshit Luthra
For Respondents – Mr. Hitesh Vali (APP for State), Mr. Devansh Gupta
