CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 & connected matters. $~6 to 8-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 VIPUL KUMAR .....Petitioner versus THE STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents + CRL.M.C. 4761/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20639/2025 GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR .....Petitioners versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents + CRL.M.C. 6210/2025, CRL.M.A. 26290/2025 VIPUL SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Appearances: Mr. Ram Nath Singh K., Advocate for Petitioner in item Nos. 6 and 8/R2 in item No. 7. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocates for petitioner in item No. 7/R2 in item Nos. 6 and 8. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Udit, P.S. Ranhola, ASI Visheweshwar, ASI Rajneesh. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 02.07.2026 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 06/07/2026 at 10:26:18 CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 & connected matters. Page 2 of 7 1. These petitions have been filed 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. 207/2023 dated 11.03.2023, for offences punishable under Sections 452/323/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 4618/2025]; FIR No. 203/2023 dated 04.03.2023, for offences punishable under Sections 323/452/506/34 of the IPC [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 4761/2025]; and FIR No. 187/2023 dated 21.02.2023, for offences punishable under Sections 308/341/509/34 of the IPC [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 6210/2025], all registered at Police Station Ranhola, Outer District, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the private respondents in CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 and CRL.M.C. 6210/2025. Mr. Ram Nath Singh K., learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant in CRL.M.C. 4761/2025. 3. The parties are present in person, and have been identified by their respective learned counsel, as well as the Investigating Officer. 4. FIR No. 203/2023 dated 04.03.2023 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 4761/2025] and FIR No. 187/2023 dated 21.02.2023 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 6210/2025] are cross-FIRs, arising out of an incident dated 18.02.2023. It appears that the parties, who are neighbours, entered into an altercation concerning certain construction work, which led to a 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 06/07/2026 at 10:26:18 CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 & connected matters. Page 3 of 7 scuffle. FIR No. 207/2023 arises out of a subsequent incident alleged to have occurred on 11.03.2023. The complainant therein [respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 4618/2025] alleges that her neighbour forcibly entered her house, extended threats to her, and caused damage to certain articles therein. 5. It may be noted that the accused in FIR No. 207/2023 has also been arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 187/2023, alongwith his father and brother. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheets were filed. 6. The Medico-Legal Certificate in FIR No. 203/2023 records simple injuries. However, Mr. Chauhan points out that the injuries sustained by the complainant in FIR No. 187/2023, as well as by his wife and son [respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in CRL.M.C. 6210/2025], were all categorised as “dangerous”, including head injuries inflicted by bricks. The parties, who are present in person and represented by counsel, submit that there are no lasting injuries. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, with the intervention of common friends and neighbours, the parties arrived at a comprehensive settlement dated 10.05.2023. The settlement records that the parties have agreed to withdraw all pending proceedings against each other, without any monetary consideration. Affidavits of the respective complainants, placing on record their no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, have also been placed on record. 8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIRs. 9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, 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 06/07/2026 at 10:26:18 CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 & connected matters. Page 4 of 7 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, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected. 10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 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 06/07/2026 at 10:26:18 CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 & connected matters. Page 5 of 7 exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and- fast category can be prescribed.” [Emphasis supplied.] Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds 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 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 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 06/07/2026 at 10:26:18 CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 & connected matters. Page 6 of 7 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.” [Emphasis supplied.] 11. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a misunderstanding stemming from trivial neighbourhood dispute. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes, and wish to restore cordial relations. As noted above, the parties did not suffer from any lasting injuries. In these circumstances, the continuance of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and is unlikely to culminate in conviction. It would, instead, result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and resources. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the present case warrants the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, so as to secure the ends of justice. 12. However, having regard to the nature of the offence in FIR No. 187/2023, I consider it appropriate to impose orders of costs and community service upon the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 6210/2025. They will report for community service to the Medical Superintendent, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi, on 10.07.2026 at 11:30 AM. The petitioners shall perform community service for a total of eight sessions of three hours each, within a period of three months thereafter. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties to them, either separately or collectively, and to issue a certificate of compliance upon completion of the aforesaid period. The petitioners shall place the same on record within four weeks thereafter. 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 06/07/2026 at 10:26:18 CRL.M.C. 4618/2025 & connected matters. Page 7 of 7 13. The petitioners in CRL.M.C. 6210/2025 are also directed to deposit costs of Rs. 30,000/- collectively, with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338, IFSC No. UCBA0001553, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch: Delhi High Court], within a period of four weeks. A compliance affidavit shall be filed within two weeks thereafter. 14. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed, and FIR No. 207/2023 dated 11.03.2023, under Sections 452/323/427/506/34 of the IPC; FIR No. 203/2023 dated 04.03.2023, under Sections 323/452/506/34 of the IPC; and FIR No. 187/2023 dated 21.02.2023, under Sections 308/341/509/34 of the IPC, all registered at Police Station Ranhola, Outer District, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 15. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 16. Accordingly, the petitions, alongwith pending application, stand disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 2, 2026 ‘B/KA’/ 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 06/07/2026 at 10:26:18