Phool Chand & Ors. vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

Crl.M.A.28433/2026 (seeking condonation of delay of 588 days in re-filing the petition)

CRL.M.C. 6807/2026

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

This Memorandum of Understanding has been made and executed today at New Delhi on this 17^th day of December, 2022, by and between

1)

Shri Pradeep Sah S/o Shri Sita Ram Sah, R/o H. No.3086, Gali No.7, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi-110008, first party of One Part.

2)

Shri Phool Chand S/o Shri Maheshwar Sah, R/o H. No.3084, Gali No.7, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi-110008, Second party of One Part.

And

1)

Shri Sada Ram S/o Late Shri Maha Singh, R/o H. No.3084, Gali No.7, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi-110008, first party of Other Part.

2)

Shri Parveen Southey S/o Shri Sada Ram, R/o H. No.Z/73-74, Third Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, Second Party of Other Part.

AND WHEREAS Shri Pradeep Sah and Shri Sada Ram have settled their dispute pertaining to the property Nos. 3086 and 3084 in the mediation centre on 17.12.2022. Copy of the said settlement dated 17.12.2022 arrived at between the said parties in the mediation centre is attached herewith.

AND WHEREAS in pursuance of the said amicable settlement, in order to promote peace and harmony between them, the parties to this MOU have also settled the matters the details of which are given as under:-

1.

(1) MISC SCJ No. 29701/2016 Titled: Pradeep Sah Vs. Sada Ram.

2.

(2) SC No. 27470/2016 State Vs. Phool Chand, Pradeep Kumar Sah, Manju and Nutan Gupta, FIR No. 210/11, PS Ranjeet Nagar, U/s 452/34 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Prevention of Attrocities Act 1989, pending in the court of Sh. Dhiraj Mor, Ld. ASJ, (Central), THC, Delhi for 21.12.2022. Complainant of the case is Sh. Parveen Southey, second party of Other Part.

AND WHEREAS the above said matters have been comprehensively discussed by the parties in cordial atmosphere and the same have been settled on the following terms and conditions:-

1.

That the parties have mutually settled the entire dispute in full and final amicably without any force.

2.

That the first party of One Part i.e. Shri Pradeep Sah shall compensate the first party of the Other Part i.e. Shri Sada Ram and pay him a sum of Rs.1 Lakh against withdrawal of the above said civil case bearing MISC SCJ No. 29701/2016 by him.

3.

That the complainant of FIR No. 210/11, PS Ranjeet Nagar, U/s 452/34 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Prevention of Attrocities Act 1989, Sh. Parveen Southey (second party of Other Part), has settled the matter with the accused persons of the case, namely Shri Phool Chand, Shri Pradeep Kumar Sah, Smt. Manju and Smt. Nutan Gupta, outside the court amicably and voluntarily without any force or pressure and without any monetary consideration. The settlement arrived at between the parties by way of the

“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 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.”

“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.

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.”

“16.

Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.

17.

On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.”