CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 1 of 21

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 15.01.2026

Pronounced on: 10.04.2026

+ CRL.A. 255/2021

VINOD KUMAR AHUJA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Pruthi, Adv.

versus

STATE .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with

Mr. Manvendra Yadav,

Advocate and SI Sanjeeta, PS

Mukherjee Nagar

WITH

+ CRL.A. 442/2023

STATE .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with

Mr. Manvendra Yadav,

Advocate and SI Sanjeeta, PS

Mukherjee Nagar

versus

VINOD KUMAR AHUJA .....Respondent

Through: Mr Anil Kumar Pruthi, Adv.

AND

+ CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 & CRL.M.A. 8797/2025

VINOD KUMAR AHUJA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr Anil Kumar Pruthi, Adv.

versus

STATE & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with

Mr. Manvendra Yadav,

Advocate and SI Sanjeeta, PS

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 2 of 21

Mukherjee Nagar

Mr. Sarthak Tomar and Ms.

Maahi Tomar, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

J U D G M E N T

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1.The Criminal Appeal No. 255/2021 has been preferred by the

appellant/convict, Vinod Kumar Ahuja, against the Judgment dated

30

th

April, 2021, vide which, he was convicted under Section 325 of

the Indian Penal Code [“IPC”] and against the Order on Sentence

dated 04

th

May, 2021, vide which, he was sentenced to Simple

Imprisonment for a period of 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-.

In default of payment of fine, the appellant/convict was directed to

further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.

2.The State has filed the cross appeal, being Crl. A. No.

442/2023, titled “State v. Vinod Kumar Ahuja”, assailing the said

Judgment and Order, and praying for conviction of the

appellant/convict under Section 307 IPC and for enhancement of

sentence awarded to him.

3.During the pendency of the aforesaid cross appeals, the

appellant/convict, Vinod Kumar Ahuja filed Crl. M.C. 1952/2025

under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

[“BNSS”] [old Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(“CrPC”)] for quashing of FIR bearing No. 258/2012, under Section

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 3 of 21

307 IPC, at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, and all proceedings

emanating therefrom, on the ground of an amicable compromise with

the injured, Jitender Kumar.

4.As the cross appeals and the petition arise from common facts

and issues, and from the same FIR, they are being taken up together

for disposal by way of this common judgment. For the sake of

convenience, the appellant in Crl. A. 255/2021, Vinod Kumar Ahuja,

shall hereinafter be referred to as, the ‘accused’.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

5.As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Sh. Kishan Lal

Dawar (PW-1), used to run a kiryana shop at 38, Nirankari Colony,

Delhi, which was just three houses away from his residential house.

The accused, Vinod Kumar Ahuja, used to run a cloth shop, which

was adjacent to the kiryana shop of the PW-1. On 10

th

August, 2012 at

about 9:30 pm, when PW-1 reached his shop, his son Jitender (PW-2)

told him that in the morning he had an altercation with the accused,

Vinod Kumar Ahuja, as after sprinkling some water in front of his

shop, the accused had thrown away the remaining water on the side of

their shop due to which the articles kept there got damaged. When

PW-2, Jitender, was apprising the complainant (PW-1) about the

incident, the accused came out from his shop with a long knife in his

hand and stated “Aaj Inko Sabak Sikha Deta Hoon”, and thereafter

immediately stabbed the complainant (PW-1) in his stomach. When

PW-2, Jitender, tried to rescue his father, the accused stabbed him on

his neck and abdomen. At the time of the incident, PW-4 Rajeev

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 4 of 21

Kumar and PW-5 Manish Batra were also present at the spot and thus,

were the eye-witnesses to the incident

6.On receiving the information, Gagan (PW-3), the elder son of

the complainant, reached the spot. However, in the meanwhile, the

accused ran away from the spot.

7.PW-3 Gagan took the complainant and Jitender to a Trauma

Centre, where they were medically examined. PW-14A, SI Brij

Bhushan and PW-11, Constable Rajender came at the Trauma Centre,

collected the MLCs of the injured and recorded the statement (Ex.

PW-1/A) of PW-1 Kishan Lal Dawar, prepared the Rukka (Ex. PW-

14/A) and sent the same to the police station through PW-11, and on

the basis of the said Rukka, FIR No. 258/2012 (Ex. PW-6/B) was

registered.

8.The Crime Team inspected the spot of occurrence and took the

photographs of the place of occurrence. The accused was arrested vide

Arrest Memo (Ex. PW-11/A). His personal search was conducted vide

Memo (Ex. PW-11/B) and his disclosure statement (Ex. PW-11/C)

was recorded.

9.During investigation, PW-14A prepared the site plan of

occurrence (Ex. PW-14/B). However, the weapon of offence, that is, a

knife, could not be recovered. The opinion of the doctor was obtained

regarding the nature of injuries of the victim. After completing the

investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section

307 IPC.

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 5 of 21

10. On 18

th

April 2013, a Charge under Section 307 IPC was

framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial.

11.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 19

witnesses, as per the following details:

S. No. Name of prosecution

witness

Deposition made by the witnesses

1. PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal

Dawar and PW-2 Sh.

Jitender Kumar

They are the injured witnesses.

They deposed about the incident

in question. PW-1 proved his

statement as Ex. PW-1/A.

2. PW-3 Sh. Gagan He is the son of PW-1 and brother

of PW-2. He had rushed the

injured persons to the hospital.

3. PW-4 Rajeev Kumar He is the eye-witness of the

occurrence. He corroborated the

testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2

regarding the incident.

4. PW-5 Sh. Manish Batra As per prosecution case, he was

also an eye-witness of the

occurrence. However, he did not

completely support the

prosecution case and was declared

hostile and cross-examined by the

learned APP on behalf of the

State.

5. PW-6 HC Arvind Kumar He was working as Duty Officer

at the relevant time. He proved

DD entry Ex. PW-6/A and FIR

Ex. PW-6/B.

6. PW-7 SI Ramesh Chand He was in charge of the Mobile

Crime Team at the relevant time.

He had visited the spot and

prepared the Inspection Report

Ex. PW-7/A.

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 6 of 21

7. PW-7A Constable

Subhash (inadvertently,

numbered as PW-7)

He was posted as Constable in the

Crime Team at the relevant time.

He had taken the photographs of

the place of occurrence. He

proved the negatives of the

photographs as Ex. PW-7/A1 to

Ex. PW-7/A7 and the

photographs as Ex. PW-7/B

(colly.)

8. PW-8 W. Constable

Suman

She was posted in PCR at the

relevant period. She proved the

PCR Form Ex. PW-8/A.

9. PW-9 Dr. Abhishek

Kumar

He had examined PW-1 Kishan

Lal Dawar at Fortis Hospital. He

proved his report as Ex. PW-9/A

to Ex. PW-9/J.

10. PW-10 HC Anand

Kumar

He was posted as Beat Constable

in the area where the incident in

question took place. On hearing

the noise, he reached at the spot

of occurrence. He is a witness of

the investigation.

11. PW-11 Constable

Rajender

He had assisted the IO in the

investigation of the case. He is a

witness to the arrest documents

and the disclosure statement of

the accused.

12. PW-12 Dr. Shalabh

Agarwal

He had examined both the injured

at Fortis Hospital. He proved the

Discharge Summaries of both the

injured as Ex. PW-12/A and Ex.

PW-12/B.

13. PW-13 Dr. Dheeraj He proved the MLCs of injured

Jitender and Kishan Kumar

Dawar as Ex. PW-13/A and Ex.

PW-13/B respectively.

14. PW-14 Dr. J.K. Basu He came to depose on behalf of

Dr. Satender Pal. Upon seeing the

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 7 of 21

MLCs Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-

13/B, he deposed that the nature

of injuries has been opined as

‘dangerous to life’ by Dr.

Satender Pal.

15. PW-14A (inadvertently

wrongly numbered as

PW-14) SI Brij Bhushan

He was the first IO of this case.

He had prepared the Rukka Ex.

PW-14/A, rough site plan Ex.

PW-14/B and also proved the

MLC of accused Vinod Kumar

Ahuja as Ex. PW-14/DA.

16. PW-15 Dr. Surbhi She was working with Fortis

Hospital at the relevant time. She

had examined PW-1 Kishan Lal

Dawar and proved the reports Ex.

PW-15/A to Ex. PW-15/C.

17. PW-16 Dr. Atul N.C.

Peters

He was working at Fortis Hospital

at the relevant time. He had

examined both the injured.

18. PW-17 ASI Kailash

Chand

He was posted as MHC(M) at the

relevant time. He deposed about

the deposit of two pullandas in

the Malkhana on 11.08.2012.

12.Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating evidence put to

him. According to him, Jitender, son of Kishan Kumar, had thrown

water and garbage in front of his shop and when he objected, Jitender

called his father and brother and they all, armed with dandas and

sarias, trespassed into his shop and gave him beatings. Upon hearing

commotion, his mother, who was inside the house, tried to intervene.

The above said persons also gave beatings to his mother and caused a

fracture in her hand. He further stated that the police did not record his

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 8 of 21

statement and also did not take any action, and therefore, he had to file

a complaint against Kishan Lal Dawar, Jitender and Gagan.

13.In order to prove the aforesaid defence, the accused examined 7

witnesses.

14.Upon conclusion of the trial, vide Judgment dated 30

th

April,

2021, the accused was convicted under Section 325 of the IPC, and

vide Order on Sentence dated 04

th

May, 2021, the sentence noted

hereinabove was imposed on the accused. Aggrieved of the same, the

cross appeals have been filed by the accused and the State.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:

15.The learned APP, appearing for the State, has submitted that the

learned Trial Court, despite duly appreciating the ocular testimonies of

PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 & PW-5 and observing that the injuries were

inflicted by the accused and were opined to be dangerous to life, erred

in convicting the accused only under Section 325 of the IPC. He

submitted that the consistent and corroborated evidence on record

establishes that the accused assaulted PW-1 and PW-2 with a knife on

vital parts of their body, namely, their abdomen and neck. Such an act,

by its very nature, clearly discloses the intention and knowledge

requisite for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

16. It was further argued that the non-recovery of the weapon of

offence could not have been a determinative factor to dilute the

offence from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC. The intention to

commit murder can be gathered from the nature of the weapon used,

the part of the body targeted, and the manner of assault, and it is not

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 9 of 21

essential that the injury actually caused should be sufficient in the

ordinary course to cause death. In the present case, stabbing on the

abdomen and neck with a sharp weapon, unequivocally establishes the

intention of the accused to cause death.

17. The learned APP further submitted that the sentence awarded is

grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The learned ASJ erred in granting undue leniency on the ground of

delay in trial, contrary to the settled law laid down by the Supreme

Court, wherein it has been held that misplaced sympathy undermines

public confidence in the justice delivery system. Thus, according to

him, the impugned judgment warrants interference and the conviction

under Section 325 IPC deserves to be set aside and the accused is

liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC, with an enhanced

sentence.

18.Learned APP for the State submits that Crl. A. 255/2021 is

liable to be dismissed as accused is not challenging the conviction on

merits. With regard to quashing of the FIR and the proceedings

emanating therefrom, including the Judgment of Conviction, it has

been submitted that the same is not possible at this stage, inasmuch as,

the accused Vinod Kumar Ahuja has already been convicted and the

appeal filed by the State for conviction under Section 307 IPC and

enhancement of sentence is also pending.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/CONVICT:

19.The learned counsel, who appears for the accused, submitted

that the medical evidence does not prove the depth of the injuries and

even the weapon of the offence has not been recovered. He submitted

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 10 of 21

that the incident was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the

moment. The convict had no intention to inflict injuries sufficient to

cause death and thus the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not

proved.

20.The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the

accused does not challenge the Judgment of Conviction dated 30

th

April, 2021, whereby, he has been convicted under Section 325 IPC,

as he has entered into a compromise with the victim, Jitender Kumar,

vide Compromise Deed dated 15

th

February, 2024 (Annexure-B in Crl.

M.C. 1952/2025). It has been submitted that both the parties are close

relatives of each other and have arrived at the said settlement, thereby,

agreeing to settle all their disputes amicably without any pressure,

threat, coercion, or undue influence of any kind whatsoever. PW-2,

Jitender Kumar, has further agreed to get the FIR No. 258/2012, under

Section 307 IPC, PS Mukherjee Nagar and all the proceedings

emanating from the said FIR, including conviction, sentence, charges

etc. against the accused quashed.

21.It has also been submitted that as per the Compromise Deed, the

accused has also agreed to withdraw the Criminal Complaint bearing

No. 3260/2016, titled “Vinod Kumar Ahuja v. Kishan Lal Dawar &

Ors.”, under Sections 452/325/34/506/120-B of the IPC, which is

pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, North. It is also

submitted that the accused has already made payment of Rs. 50,000/-

to PW-2 at the time of signing of the compromise deed, and the

balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of

the FIR.

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 11 of 21

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

22.As the outcome of Crl. A. 255/2021 and Crl. M.C. 1952/2025

are dependent on the outcome of Crl.A. 442/2023 filed by the State,

we shall consider Crl.A. 442/2023 first.

23.Having carefully examined the impugned Judgment dated 30

th

April, 2021 and the Order on Sentence dated 04

th

May, 2021 as also

the records of the case, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or

non-application of judicial mind, warranting interference in appellate

jurisdiction of this Court with the conviction of the accused under

Section 325 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. The learned Trial

Court has undertaken a detailed appreciation of the ocular and medical

evidence on record and has assigned cogent reasons for arriving at the

conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence

under Section 325 IPC, while the ingredients of Section 307 IPC were

not established beyond reasonable doubt.

24. The prosecution case is based upon the testimony of PW-1

Kishan Lal Dawar, PW-2 Jitender Kumar (both injured persons) and

eye-witnesses namely PW-4 Rajeev Kumar and PW-5 Manish Batra.

Admittedly, the injured and accused were having shops adjacent to

each other. Upon appreciation of the testimonies of the aforesaid

witnesses as also the medical evidence and the testimonies of the

defence witnesses, the learned Trial Court found that there was a petty

quarrel between the parties over sprinkling of water. Even though the

learned Trial Court found that there appears to be some truth in the

defence version of the accused, but in view of the testimonies of PW-

1, PW-2 & PW-4, which were consistent and reliable, it formed the

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 12 of 21

opinion that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it was concluded that the accused had

caused stab injuries on the abdomen of PW-1 and PW-2 and also on

the back of head of PW-2, and such injuries were opined to be

‘dangerous’ to their life. However, since the weapon of the offence

could not be recovered, and in the absence of any medical opinion

regarding the depth of injuries, the learned Trial Court held that it

could not be established that there was an attempt to cause murder of

the victims so as to convict the accused under Section 307 IPC. The

relevant paragraphs of the Trial Court judgment are reproduced

hereunder:

“43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this

Court is of the considered opinion that though

there seems to be some truth in the defence

version of the accused, but keeping in view the

testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW4, which are

consistent and reliable, the prosecution has

been able to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubts. It has been proved on record that

accused was present at the spot and he had

caused stab injuries on the abdomen of PW1

and PW and also on the back of head of PW2,

which were opined to be dangerous to their

life.

44. As per case of prosecution, the accused

has caused injuries to both PW1 and PW with

knife. However, admittedly, there is no

recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife in the

present case. PW14 SI Brij Bhushan is the

investigating officer of this case. As per his

testimony, accused was arrested in the present

case and thereafter he made efforts for search

of weapon of offence, but in vain. Even all the

eye-witnesses have stated that accused was

holding a knife, but its specific description is

not given as to of which metal it was, whether

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 13 of 21

steel or iron. PW1 Kishan Lal has simply

deposed that it was a long knife. In the

absence of non-recovery of knife, it cannot be

ascertained as to what was the length, breadth

of the knife, whether its handle was of wooden

or steel etc. The depth of the injuries sustained

by PW1 & PW2 could have been ascertained if

the recovery of weapon of offence has been

effected, which is not the case herein. In

absence thereof, benefit in this regard can be

extended to the accused. The nature of injuries

sustained by PW1 and PW2 can be said to be

covered u/s 325 IPC.

45. In the present case, the accused has

been charged with the offence u/s 307 IPC. As

already discussed above, there are four eye-

witnesses to the incident and they have

established the case of the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubts, but even after considering

the whole evidence, the fact regarding weapon

of offence could not be ascertained nor the

type of weapon could be established being not

recovered by the investigating agency. There

are injuries on the stomach of both the injured

persons and there is also injury on the neck of

PW2, but there is no averment from the

medical side regarding the depth of the

injuries, whereby it could have been

established that there was an attempt to cause

murder of the victims so as to fall u/s 307 IPC.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the benefit of

non-recovery of weapon of offence has to be

extended to the accused. In view of the

aforesaid discussion, the accused is held guilty

for the offence u/s 325 IPC and is convicted

thereunder.”

25.Since the accused is not challenging the Impugned Judgment of

Conviction and even the State is not challenging the findings of the

learned Trial Court to the extent that it holds the accused guilty, even

though, it challenges the conviction under a milder offence, we may

not go into an in-depth appreciation of the testimonies of the injured

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 14 of 21

and the eye-witnesses, inasmuch as, the decision with regard to

conviction under Section 307 or 325 IPC would mainly depend upon

the medical evidence produced before the Court.

26.The prosecution has proved the MLCs of the victims, Jitendra

Kumar and Kishan Lal, through PW-13 Dr. Dheeraj, which are Ex.

PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B respectively. According to him, on

examination of PW-2, he found following injuries:

(i) sharp incised injury wound over left lower abdomen perforated

gut coming out through wound;

(ii) lacerated wound on occipital region (lower) of

approximately 8 x 2 cm size.

27.Similarly, upon examination, PW-1 Kishan Lal was found

having a lacerated wound on middle upper abdomen, sized 4 x 2 cm,

with omentum coming out through the wound.

28.In cross examination, PW-13 stated that he had not mentioned

the depth of any injuries in the MLCs- Ex. PW-13/A and PW-13/B.

He admitted that he had also not given the size of injury no. 1 in the

MLC Ex. PW-13A.

29.PW-14 Dr. J.K. Basu, who was deputed by the Medical

Superintendent of Sushrut Trauma Centre to depose on behalf of Dr.

Satender Pal, after seeing the MLC, deposed that as per both the

MLCs, the nature of injuries has been opined as ‘dangerous to life.’

30.Admittedly, there is no recovery of weapon of offence, and

therefore, it is not known as to what type of knife was used. The

length of the knife is also not known. Though it is a settled law that

non-recovery of the weapon is not always fatal to the case of the

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 15 of 21

prosecution, however, in the present case, the alleged weapon forms

the core of the prosecution story and its absence assumes significance

in the light of the fact that MLCs do not specify the depth of the

injuries.

31.The medical evidence does not unequivocally establish that the

injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or

that it was inflicted with such force and intention so as to attract

Section 307 IPC. In order to sustain conviction under Section 307

IPC, it must be shown that the act was done with such intention or

knowledge as would have made the act amount to murder if death had

ensued. In the present case, the incident of altercation took place

between PW-2 and the accused at 5:00-6:00 pm on the petty issue of

sprinkling of water towards the shop of PW-2, due to which his stock

was damaged, while the incident of stabbing took place at 9:30 pm

when PW-2 was narrating the incident to his father. It appears from

the evidence that accused got enraged while PW-2 was complaining to

his father about the previous incident and lost his cool and brought a

knife and stabbed PW-1 and PW-2.

32.We are of the view that the act of stabbing was, therefore, not

premeditated, thus ruling out any intention on part of the accused to

cause death. The prosecution has therefore failed to establish that

accused had the intent to cause the murder of the victims, so as to

attract the ingredients of Section 307 IPC. We therefore do not find

any infirmity in the impugned judgment, insofar as, it convicts the

accused under Section 325 IPC.

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 16 of 21

33.Coming to the appeal and the petition filed by the accused, as

noted herein above, the accused does not press his appeal against his

conviction. Instead, it has been submitted that during the pendency of

the appeals, one of the injured, namely, Kishan Lal Dawar, who was

the father of the second injured, namely, Jitender, has since expired on

14

th

January 2024 and settlement dated 15

th

February, 2024 has been

arrived at between the accused, Vinod Kumar Ahuja, and PW-2,

Jitender. It is therefore pleaded by the learned counsel for the accused

that the sentence of the accused be reduced.

34.PW-2, Jitender, on being asked, reiterated the factum of the

settlement. He stated that he has amicably settled the disputes with the

accused, of his own free volition and without any fear, coercion,

inducement or pressure of any kind. His affidavit in this regard is also

already on record. He further confirms that he has received a sum of

Rs. 50,000/- from the accused at the time of signing of the

compromise deed on 15

th

February, 2024, and the balance amount of

Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR. He stated

that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR bearing No.

258/2012, under Section 307 IPC, PS Mukherjee Nagar and the

subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

35.In the present case, compromise has been reached between the

parties after conviction of the accused. This Court, in exercise of

power under Section 528 of BNSS, is empowered to pass orders to

secure the ends of justice. While admittedly, the High Court should be

slow in quashing the proceedings when the parties compromise the

matter at a belated stage, however, the High Court is not precluded

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 17 of 21

from considering the factum of settlement between the victim and the

accused at the appellate stage.

36.The Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of

Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, was considering a case where

the accused had been convicted for the offences under Sections

294/323/326/34 IPC. On an appeal based on settlement, the Appellate

Court had compounded the offences under Section 294/323/34 IPC,

acquitting the accused, however, had maintained the conviction under

Section 326/34 IPC, since the offence was not compoundable, thereby

reducing the sentence from three years to one year. The High Court

also did not quash the conviction based on the compromise, but

reduced the sentence to the period undergone. In these facts, the

Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in not exercising its

powers under Section 482 CrPC, and observed as under:

“11. True it is that offences which are “non-

compoundable” cannot be compounded by a

criminal court in purported exercise of its

powers under Section 320 CrPC. Any such

attempt by the court would amount to

alteration, addition and modification of

Section 320 CrPC, which is the exclusive

domain of legislature. There is no patent or

latent ambiguity in the language of Section

320 CrPC, which may justify its wider

interpretation and include such offences in the

docket of “compoundable” offences which

have been consciously kept out as non-

compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited

jurisdiction to compound an offence within the

framework of Section 320 CrPC is not an

embargo against invoking inherent powers by

the High Court vested in it under Section 482

CrPC. The High Court, keeping in view the

peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 18 of 21

for justifiable reasons can press Section 482

CrPC in aid to prevent abuse of the process of

any court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard

to the nature of the offence and the fact that

parties have amicably settled their dispute and

the victim has willingly consented to the

nullification of criminal proceedings, can

quash such proceedings in exercise of its

inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC,

even if the offences are non-compoundable.

The High Court can indubitably evaluate the

consequential effects of the offence beyond the

body of an individual and thereafter adopt a

pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony,

even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with

or paralyse the very object of the

administration of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings

involving non-heinous offences or where the

offences are pre-dominantly of a private

nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact

that trial has already been concluded or

appeal stands dismissed against conviction.

Handing out punishment is not the sole form of

delivering justice. Societal method of applying

laws evenly is always subject to lawful

exceptions. It goes without saying, that the

cases where compromise is struck post-

conviction, the High Court ought to exercise

such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view

the circumstances surrounding the incident,

the fashion in which the compromise has been

arrived at, and with due regard to the nature

and seriousness of the offence, besides the

conduct of the accused, before and after the

incidence. The touchstone for exercising the

extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC

would be to secure the ends of justice. There

can be no hard-and-fast line constricting the

power of the High Court to do substantial

justice. A restrictive construction of inherent

powers under Section 482 CrPC may lead to

rigid or specious justice, which in the given

facts and circumstances of a case, may rather

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 19 of 21

lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in

cases where heinous offences have been

proved against perpetrators, no such benefit

ought to be extended, as cautiously observed

by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of

Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,

(2014) 6 SCC 466, para 29 : (2014) 3 SCC

(Cri) 54] and Laxmi Narayan [State of

M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688,

para 15 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] .”

37.This Court has also been informed that the parties are relatives

of each other and one more criminal complaint bearing no. 3260/2016,

titled as “Vinod Kumar Ahuja v. Kishan Lal Dawar & Ors.” under

Sections 452/325/506/120-B IPC filed by the accused against the

victims is pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

and the parties have now amicably settled their disputes. The incident

in the present case pertains to the year 2012 and after facing trial for

about 9 years, the accused was convicted, and the cross appeals filed

by the accused and the State are pending since then.

38.The injured/victim, Jitender, has categorically stated that he

does not want to pursue any proceedings against the accused and has

entered into compromise out of his own volition.

39.The learned Trial Court in its impugned order of sentence dated

04.05.2021 had itself recorded that the accused is the sole earning

member of his family, has shown good conduct, is a first time

offender and the dispute was between family members on a trivial

issue of throwing water. Hence, considering the overall facts and

circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the parties have

amicably resolved their differences of their own free will and without

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 20 of 21

any coercion, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be

served by incarcerating the accused to prison, rather, the same would

create further acrimony between the parties.

40.Appellant is stated to be the first time offender, the offence is

punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years. Considering

the circumstances in which the offence was committed, indicate that it

was not premeditated but arose out of a sudden quarrel. We are

therefore of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to benefit of

probation. However, since the State machinery has been put to motion

and the settlement is arrived at a belated stage, ends of justice would

be served if the appellant is put to cost.

CONCLUSION:

41.Accordingly, Crl. A. 442/2023, filed by the State is dismissed.

However, while maintaining conviction of accused Vinod Kumar

Ahuja, under Section 325 IPC, having regard to the age, character and

antecedents of the accused and taking note of the circumstances in

which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing the convict at

once to any punishment, we deem it expedient that appellant should be

released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, upon

his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety

of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Registrar General with

direction that he shall appear and receive the sentence when called for

during such period, and in the meanwhile, he shall keep peace and be

of good behaviour with further condition that accused shall abide by

the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the

parties and shall deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

CRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 21 of 21

Only) with the Army Central Welfare Fund maintained with Union

Bank of India, Branch: Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, bearing

Account No. 520101236373338, IFSC Code: UBIN0530778, within a

period of four (04) weeks from today.

42.Crl. A. 255/2021 and Crl. MC 1952/2025 are disposed of in

terms of the aforesaid directions.

43. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail

Superintendent and the learned Trial Court for information and

necessary compliance.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

APRIL 10, 2026/na/RM