$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010964562025 + W.P.(CRL) 3981/2025 and CRL.M.A. 6832/2026 SUNNY @ BHURA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Petitioners in person with Ms.Akanksha Priya, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GOVT.OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for State with SI Sagar, PS Gokulpuri. R-2 in person with Ms. Neeta Goyal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 14.09.2026 The matter was listed for 11.09.2026 and is taken up today as 11.09.2026 was declared as a holiday on account of BRICS Summit, 2026. 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue an appropriate Writ/Direction for quashing the FIR bearing no.0218/2025 dated 16.07.2025, registered under Section 74, 76, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 in the P.S. Gokulpuri, Delhi and other proceedings driven from or connected to FIR bearing No. 02 18/2025 dated 16.07.2025, in the interest of justice. (b) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Petitioners and respondent no.2 are present in Court and they have been identified by the Investigating Officer of the case as well as by 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 16/09/2026 at 13:04:30 respective counsel. 3. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioners and respondent no.2 were the residents of same locality and had cordial relation with each other. On account of some misunderstanding, a dispute has arisen between them and an FIR came to be lodged on the complaint of the respondent no.2. It is submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 4. Respondent no.2 affirms the factum of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners by way of a settlement deed dated 30.08.2025. She also affirms that all terms of the settlement have been fully adhered to. She, therefore, does not have any objection in quashing of the FIR in question nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto. 5. On behalf of the State there is no opposition in quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 and the statement of the respondent no.2. 6. Despite certain offences being classified as non-compoundable under the IPC, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), High Courts have proceeded to quash such proceedings on account of a settlement between the parties. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,2 the Court recognized that such an approach serves the ends of justice by bringing the litigation to an end, preventing its needless continuation, and acknowledging that following the compromise, the likelihood of conviction has become remote and bleak. 7. The conditions and pre-requisits for compounding were elaborated in 2 (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 16/09/2026 at 13:04:30 Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,3 and the following were deemed necessary before quashing the proceedings on the basis of a settlement/compromise: i. There should hardly be any likelihood of the offender being convicted, given the compromise that took place between the parties. Particularly, so in disputes that are predominantly civil in nature, for instance those arising from commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family matters, a genuine compromise may render the possibility of conviction remote and bleak; ii. By not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be the casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. Where continuation of proceedings despite settlement is unfair, unjust, or an abuse of process, quashing may be allowed to secure the ends of justice; and iii. The timing of the compromise also becomes relevant, quashing may be considered at the investigation or early-trial stage, but is ordinarily declined once evidence is substantially complete or conviction has been recorded. 8. The aforesaid proposition was refined in Vijay Kumar Kela v. CBI,4 to clarify that, ultimately, it is facts and circumstances of each case that determine the compoundability of proceedings and no straight-jacket formula can be prescribed. It was also noted that before exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. 4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1003. 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 16/09/2026 at 13:04:30 9. However, the Court clarified that compounding on the basis of a purported settlement cannot take place where–first, heinous offences affecting the society at large are in question; and second, a compromise between the parties cannot quash corruption or official duty offences.5 10. Specifically, it may also be noted that while the offence of rape is ordinarily non-compoundable.6 However, in cases where marriage has subsequently taken place and the parties are residing together quashment on the basis of a settlement has been allowed. The principle adopted for such a quashment is that the same is required in the interest of justice and to do complete justice;7 and such an exercise is undertaken where despite the seriousness of the offence, the facts do not disclose such elements of public interest or heinous criminality, as to necessitate the continuation of criminal proceedings.8 11. Further, where proceedings for the offence of rape along with allegations under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”) are sought to be quashed. Courts have allowed quashment for instance where the parties have married and a child has also been born. The underlying rationale to justify such a quashment is that if the FIR is not quashed, it will adversely affect the minor child who needs protection and care from his parents, and destroy the lives of three individuals, the couple and the new born.9 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 6 Ibid. 7 Sandeep Singh Thakur v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2927, para. 16. 8 Mr. Vishal & Ors v. The State Of Nct of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 2584/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10512/2026. 9 Harmeet Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2026:DHC:3142, Mr. Sujit Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 7406/2024, CRL.M.A. 28277/2024 & CRL.M.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 16/09/2026 at 13:04:30 12. Weightage is also given to circumstance where no criminal intent is involved in the act and it not a case where there was a forceful physical relationship with the minor child on the date of incident.10 The overarching concern of the Courts have always remained that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice.11 13. Similarly, the offence of attempt to murder is ordinarily non- compoundable. The Supreme Court12 has cautioned that the High Court should not reject the plea of compounding the offence mechanically and must take note that the mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or framing of the charge is not conclusive. It remains open to the Court to consider if the said provision has been added for the sake of it or there is “sufficient evidence” to frame charge under this provision. Considering the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc., in certain circumstances, quashing of even such a offence, is permissible. However, such an exercise by the HC would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. 14. Further, dacoity and robbery are ordinarily non-compoundable. However, the Court while taking into consideration the facts of the case, the compromise arrived at between the parties, and considering the affidavits by each one of the petitioners by way of joint application, may in appropriate 28278/2024. 10 Moeed Ahamad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8119, para 16 11 Ibid., para 17. 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 16/09/2026 at 13:04:30 cases, exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings arising from such offences13 and may also reduced the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction.14 15. For the offence of cheating and forgery where the dispute is predominantly civil, investigation is pending for a long time, and where the complainant, including a bank, has been satisfied that the claims have been satisfied due to compromise on receiving payments, the Court has also considered the settlement while exercising its jurisdiction to bring the criminal proceedings to an end.15 Notably, in such cases, the factum of the possibility of conviction being remote and bleak owing to the settlement, also becomes a material factor, while considering the question of quashment. 16. In view of the aforesaid and bearing in mind the nature of the dispute, the settlement between the parties and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the 0218/2025 dated 16.07.2025 for the offence under Section 74, 76, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 registered at P.S. Gokulpuri, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed. 17. The petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 Nc 12 State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, para 15.4. 13 Aftab Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., Crl.M.C. 4814/2015 14 Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2018) 15 SCC 343. 15 CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591 and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677. 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 16/09/2026 at 13:04:30