Rohit v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶1This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 161/2014, dated

25.02.2014, registered at P.S Farsh Bazar, Delhi under Sections 354/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶2As per averments made in the FIR, on 24.02.2014 around 9:15 pm, respondent no. 2/complainant was subject to sexual assault by petitioner and his brother Gaurav who misbehaved with her by pulling her and then delivering a blow on her chest. Chargesheet has since been filed under Sections 354/34 IPC against the petitioner and his brother Gaurav/co-accused.

¶3During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing in the form of a Settlement Deed dated 10.01.2020, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure C. It has been submitted that co-accused, Gaurav has since expired and proceedings qua him before the trial Court stands abated.

¶4Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Neelam, from PS Farsh Bazar.

¶5Respondent no. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and she has no objection if the FIR No. 161/2014 is quashed against the Petitioner.

¶6In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 161/2014 is quashed.

¶7In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:- "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

¶8Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,

(2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶9In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶10The petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 161/2014, dated

25.02.2014, registered at P.S Farsh Bazar, Delhi under section 354/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed, subject to petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000/- with Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust (account no. 15530210002995), maintained with UCO Bank within a month .

¶11Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶12Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J November 12, 2025 SK

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12.11.2025 + CRL.M.C. 7990/2025 & CRL.M.A. 33391/2025 EXEMPTION ROHIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Ms. Kanchan Sharma, Advs. with petitioner in person versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. … Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Neelam, PS Farsh Bazar. Respondent no. 2 in person. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA