CRL.M.C. 2021/2026 $~66 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010103312026 + CRL.M.C. 2021/2026 CHINTU .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with Mr. Abhay Sahni, Advocate. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate for R2. SI Rajeshwar Parmar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 16.09.2026 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. 297/2025, dated 14.09.2025, registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, District Central, Delhi, under Sections 118(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. 2. The petition is taken up for hearing, with the consent of learned 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:06 CRL.M.C. 2021/2026 counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is present in Court, and has been identified by his learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The prosecution case emerging from the material on record is that the impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, alleging that on 13.09.2025, at about 9:45 PM, while he was walking home from work, the petitioner, who was his neighbour, had assaulted him with a blade, causing him injuries, while an associate of the petitioner was holding him. Respondent No. 2 was thereafter taken to LNJP hospital by his cousins, and his Medical Legal Report [“MLR”] opined the nature of injuries as grievous. 5. A chargesheet has been filed in the proceedings, invoking Sections 118(2)/3(5)/238(b) of BNS against the petitioner. It was stated therein that co-accused, the petitioner’s associate in the assault, one Manoj @ Kaku, was absconding. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have amicably resolved all their disputes, which has been recorded in respondent No. 2’s affidavit/No Objection Certificate dated 05.02.2026. 7. A status report dated 08.09.2026 has been placed on record, in which it is stated that during further investigation, co-accused Manoj @ Kaku, was arrested on 05.05.2026, in connection with the present case. Although, it was stated that Respondent No. 2 could identify the said associate if brought before him, he failed to identify him during Test 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:06 CRL.M.C. 2021/2026 Identification Parade proceedings on 23.05.2026. Therefore, co-accused Manoj @ Kaku was released in the case vide an order of the Court dated 26.05.2026. 8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the disputes have been resolved between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 9. Respondent No. 2, who is present in the Court and represented by counsel, states that although no written settlement involving monetary compensation has been executed, he has no objection to the FIR being quashed. He further states that he has not suffered any permanent injury or disability arising out of the incident. 10. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 11. The Supreme Court has consistently recognised that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. Such power may be exercised where, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and the settlement between the parties does 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 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:06 CRL.M.C. 2021/2026 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.”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 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 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:06 CRL.M.C. 2021/2026 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.” 4 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:06 CRL.M.C. 2021/2026 13. The present case arises out of a scuffle between parties who were known to each other and reside in the same neighbourhood. Although a blade is alleged to have been used during the incident, and the MLR recorded the nature of injuries sustained by respondent No. 2 as grievous, respondent No. 2 has categorically stated before this Court that he did not suffer any permanent injury or disability as a result thereof. The allegations do not, therefore, disclose any element of heinous criminality or an overriding public interest that would warrant the continuation of the criminal proceedings. 14. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, although there is no written settlement involving monetary compensation, respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed before the Court that he has settled all the disputes voluntarily with the petitioner. Further, the co- accused has been released in the present criminal proceedings, as respondent No. 2 failed to identify him, and respondent No. 2 also stated before this Court that he does not wish to continue the criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the possibility of the criminal proceedings culminating in a conviction appears remote, and their continuation would serve no meaningful purpose. The same would instead amount to a futile exercise, unnecessarily burdening the criminal justice system and consuming valuable public resources. 15. However, considering the nature of allegations in the present case, it would be appropriate to impose a condition upon the petitioner to undertake community service. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to complete six sessions of 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:06 CRL.M.C. 2021/2026 community service of three hours each, within a period of three months. He shall report to Lady Hardinge Medical College & Associated Hospitals, New Delhi on 21.09.2026 at 11:00 AM. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties to the petitioner. Upon completion of the aforesaid community service, the Medical Superintendent is requested to issue a certificate of compliance, which the petitioner shall place on record before this Court within a period of two weeks thereafter. 17. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 297/2025, dated 14.09.2025, registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, District Central, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 SS/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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:06