CRL.M.C. 7237/2025 Page 1 of 7 $~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010777532025 + CRL.M.C. 7237/2025 RAJ KUMAR DUBEY .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Nazma Hasan, Advocate with Petitioner in person versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with Mr. Varun Garg, Advocate with SI Rituraj, PS: B.K. Road CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’]1 seeking quashing of FIR No. 130/2023 dated 08.10.2023 under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘IPC’] registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road. 2. The Petitioner is present in person and is identified by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Investigating Officer. 3. Ms. Nazma Hasan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [‘NI Act’], bearing Ct. Case No. 36257/2016 was filed against the Petitioner herein. She states that due to the Petitioner’s default in attending the said proceedings, 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 08/10/2026 at 11:21:03 CRL.M.C. 7237/2025 Page 2 of 7 he was declared an absconder on 20.04.2023, and warrants were issued leading up to the registration of the subject FIR. 3.1. She states that, subsequently, the Petitioner has duly entered appearance in the complaint proceedings and settled the matter with the complainant. She has handed over a copy of the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Magistrate recording the compounding of the offence and disposal of the complaint. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned APP, states that the chargesheet has been filed. He states that though allowing the quashing would save costs to the public exchequer, this is a fit case that exemplary costs should be imposed upon the Petitioner for the costs incurred by the State machinery in the process of securing his presence to face trial in the complaint. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Although the offences under Section 174A of the IPC are non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. Where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and does not involve any overriding societal or public interest, quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the 1 Corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’] 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 08/10/2026 at 11:21:03 CRL.M.C. 7237/2025 Page 3 of 7 process of law. In this regard, this Court finds it apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2 wherein it was held as under: - “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, 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. 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline 2 (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 08/10/2026 at 11:21:03 CRL.M.C. 7237/2025 Page 4 of 7 engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the 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 proceeding.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat3, the Supreme Court has further laid down guidelines that are to be followed by the High Court while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing of the proceedings. The guidelines laid down read as under: - 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 08/10/2026 at 11:21:03 CRL.M.C. 7237/2025 Page 5 of 7 “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. 3 (2017) 9 SCC 641 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 08/10/2026 at 11:21:03 CRL.M.C. 7237/2025 Page 6 of 7 They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” [Emphasis supplied] 8. As noted above, the principal dispute was with respect to a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act due to dishonour of the cheque. The Petitioner failed to appear in the trial despite due service, compelling the learned Trial Court to direct initiation of proclaimed offender proceedings against the Petitioner. The primary intent was therefore to secure the presence of the Petitioner to face trial and punish him for his wilful non-appearance. There is no prior similar instance of the Petitioner failing to appear in legal proceedings leading to filing of similar FIR. Since the Petitioner has thereafter appeared before the learned Trial Court and has compounded the offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that since this is the sole instance of non-compliance by the Petitioner, the subject FIR can be directed to be quashed. No public interest is involved or would be achieved by proceeding with the trial in the subject FIR. This Court is of the 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 08/10/2026 at 11:21:03 CRL.M.C. 7237/2025 Page 7 of 7 considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. Nevertheless, this Court is of the view that considering the cost incurred by the public exchequer to secure his presence at trial, it would be apposite for the Petitioner to pay costs for a cause. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee [DHCLSC] within three [3] weeks. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed within four [4] weeks from today. 10. Subject to payment of aforesaid costs, within the time granted, the FIR No. 130/2023 dated 08.10.2023 under Section 174A of the IPC, registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road, the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 11. The petition is disposed of. Pending application[s], if any, are disposed of. 12. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/rhc/aa 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 08/10/2026 at 11:21:03