CRL.M.C. 6770/2025 $~31-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010711132025 + CRL.M.C. 6770/2025 DALIP SINGH @ DILIP SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satya Prakash, Mr. Tabroz Ahmad, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Lovely Priyanka. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, with Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocates for R2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”], seeking quashing of FIR No. 10/2020, dated 03.02.2020, registered at Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi, under Sections 354A/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the grounds of settlement between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner is present in Court and has been duly identified by his learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/08/2026 at 11:58:44 CRL.M.C. 6770/2025 is present through video conference and has been identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, both employees of Department of Economic Affairs [“DEA”], Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Respondent No. 2 was working as an office assistant under the supervision of the petitioner herein. Respondent No. 2 raised allegations of sexual harassment, inappropriate conduct, intimidation and abuse by the petitioner. 6. A chargesheet has also been filed against the petitioner. 7. I am also informed that respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint with the Internal Complaints Committee of DEA, however the said complaint did not culminate in any action being taken against the petitioner. 8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a settlement recorded in a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 25.08.2025. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. Respondent No. 2, who is present through video conference, states that the allegations under Section 354A of IPC arose out of a misunderstanding arising in the course of employment, and she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner any further. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/08/2026 at 11:58:44 CRL.M.C. 6770/2025 10. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 11. The Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC, quash criminal proceedings, including those arising from non-compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the continuation of the proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose, particularly when such quashing would not adversely affect any overriding public interest. 12. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has held as follows: “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/08/2026 at 11:58:44 CRL.M.C. 6770/2025 where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”2 Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/08/2026 at 11:58:44 CRL.M.C. 6770/2025 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”4 13. In the present case, the impugned FIR arises out of disputes between the parties in the course of their employment. It is stated that the petitioner has since retired, and respondent No. 2 also no longer works in the said department. Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated before this Court that the allegations under Section 354A of IPC arose out of a misunderstanding and having regard to the subsequent settlement between the parties, she does not wish to pursue the proceedings any further. In these circumstances, the likelihood of conviction is remote, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility, resulting in unnecessary consumption of judicial time and public resources. 14. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- by 4 Emphasis supplied. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/08/2026 at 11:58:44 CRL.M.C. 6770/2025 the petitioner to respondent No. 2, out of which Rs. 50,000/- has already been received by her. The balance amount, i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/-, has been transferred to respondent No. 2 today. There is, therefore, no impediment in granting the relief sought. 15. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 10/2020, dated 03.02.2020, registered at Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi, under Sections 354A/506/509 of IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to petitioner depositing costs of Rs. 20,000/- with Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within two weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance be filed within two weeks thereafter. 16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 17. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 13, 2026 ‘B’/MK/ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/08/2026 at 11:58:44