The Delhi High Court rejected a petition seeking to quash FIR No. 613/2022 on the basis that the complainant had settled the dispute with the petitioner, emphasizing that once a criminal trial has commenced the court’s inherent powers cannot be invoked to set aside the FIR.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sabana & Ors., filed a writ petition challenging FIR No. 613/2022 registered at Police Station Dayalpur, Delhi. The FIR alleged offences under IPC Sections 308, 323, 427, 455 and 506. The petitioners contended that the complainant (respondent No. 2) had reached a settlement with them and therefore the FIR should be quashed.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 613/2022 was lodged in 2022 against the petitioners for offences under Section 308, 323, 427, 455 and 506 IPC.
- The complainant (respondent No. 2) allegedly settled the dispute with the petitioners after the FIR was filed.
- Trial proceedings had already commenced; evidence was recorded during the period 2023 to 2025.
- Respondent No. 2 had already deposed in the trial.
- Petitioners sought quashing of the FIR invoking the court’s inherent powers.
Procedural History
- 2022: FIR No. 613/2022 registered at Dayalpur Police Station.
- Date not specified: Petitioners filed writ petition (CRL.M.C. 2601/2026) before the Delhi High Court.
- 2023-2025: Trial proceeded; prosecution evidence was led; respondent No. 2 deposed.
- 17 August 2026: Delhi High Court delivered judgment dismissing the petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioners prayed for a declaration that the FIR be quashed on the ground of settlement and that the criminal proceedings be terminated.
The Legal Issue
Whether the Delhi High Court can quash an FIR invoking its inherent powers when the criminal trial has already commenced and evidence has been recorded, despite the complainant’s claim of settlement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the complainant’s settlement extinguished the criminal liability and that the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to quash the FIR to prevent unnecessary prosecution.
For the Respondents (State)
The State contended that the trial was already underway, with evidence taken between 2023 and 2025 and the complainant having deposed. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, which holds that an FIR cannot be set aside once the trial has progressed substantially.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the FIR is a cognizable document that initiates criminal proceedings and that the power to quash it is an extraordinary jurisdiction exercised sparingly. It referred to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. which categorically states that once a trial has commenced, the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash the FIR. The Court observed that the prosecution evidence had been led over a two-year span (2023-2025) and that the complainant had already been examined on record. These facts demonstrated that the trial was well-advanced.
"the impugned FIR cannot be quashed invoking inherent powers of this Court, because trial as mentioned above has already proceeded ahead."
The Court further emphasized that a settlement between the parties does not automatically extinguish criminal liability, especially for offences that are cognizable and non-compoundable under the IPC. The appropriate remedy, if any, would be to seek acquittal or discharge at the trial stage, not to set aside the FIR at the pre-trial stage.
Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioners’ prayer and dismissed the writ petition.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The court held that the FIR dated 2022 remains operative; no quash order was granted. The trial will continue in accordance with the procedural law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inherent Powers Are Limited Post-Trial Commencement
- Once evidence is recorded and the accused is examined, the High Court cannot invoke Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.
- Lawyers must assess the stage of proceedings before filing a quash petition.
Settlement Does Not Bar Criminal Prosecution
- A private settlement does not automatically extinguish liability for cognizable offences under the IPC.
- Parties should pursue defence or mitigation at the trial stage rather than seeking pre-trial quash.
Appropriate Relief Lies in Trial Remedies
-
If the accused believes the case lacks merit, the correct avenue is to argue for discharge, acquittal, or bail during trial.
-
Filing a petition for quash after trial commencement is unlikely to succeed.
-
Evaluate the procedural posture before invoking inherent powers.
-
Document settlement agreements but do not rely on them to halt criminal proceedings.
-
Prepare robust defence strategies for trial rather than pre-emptive quash applications.
