$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1830/2026 MUKESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rahul with Mr. Tarun Meel, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC. SI Jagdeep Sandhu, PS Begumpur. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 01.07.2026 1. This petition is for quashing of the FIR No. 0681/2025 registered at PS Begumpur, Rohini District, Delhi, 110038, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4)/ 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 2. The parties are present in Court and have been identified by their respective counsel, as well as, by the Investigating Officer, SI Jagdeep Sandhu. The Court has interacted with the parties and the complainant/respondent No. 2 has confirmed that the settlement is voluntary and without any coercion. The parties jointly submit that they have amicably resolved their disputes and have entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 02.03.2026. They further state that the terms of the settlement have been fully complied with by both sides. 3. The dispute between the parties essentially pertains to a property dispute concerning Plot No. Q-94, admeasuring 150 sq. yds., in Rajiv Nagar 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 10:35:17 Extension, Begam Pur, Delhi. The complainant/respondent No. 2 had lodged the FIR alleging criminal trespass and cheating. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 have now resolved their differences through the aforesaid settlement deed, and respondent No. 2 has filed his no-objection affidavit, expressing no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing in paragraph no. 61, which is reproduced as under:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the 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 06/07/2026 at 10:35:17 compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” [Emphasis Supplied] 5. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 („BNSS‟) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can compound offences which are non compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Supreme Court has laid down parameters and guidelines while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,2 the Supreme Court had observed 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 2 (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 06/07/2026 at 10:35:17 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. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong 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 10:35:17 possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” 6. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Further, the High Court can quash non- compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Reliance may be placed 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 10:35:17 upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana.3 7. Applying the aforesaid principles to the matrix of the present case, this Court finds that the criminal proceedings before it bear an overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour, as it arises out of a private property transaction. The alleged wrong is basically private or personal in nature, and since the parties have voluntarily and completely resolved their entire dispute via the Memorandum of Settlement dated 02.03.2026, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. The offences alleged do not fall under the category of heinous crimes or serious offences of mental depravity, nor do they impact society at large. 8. The settlement was arrived at on 02.03.2026, within approximately three months of the registration of the FIR on 24.11.2025. As per the petition, the investigation is still at the initial stage and no charge sheet has been filed. This timing weighs in favour of exercising this Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC. This Court is mindful that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. However, having examined the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the settlement is genuine, voluntary, and has been fully complied with. The settlement between the parties is likely to result in harmony and put an end to the acrimony between them, which would further the cause of justice. 9. Without expressing any opinion about the title over the land in question, the Court is of the opinion that the FIR can be quashed with the consent of the parties. 3 (2003) 4 SCC 675. 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 10:35:17 10. Accordingly, FIR No. 0681/2025 registered at Police Station Begam Pur, District Rohini, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 11. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 1, 2026/tr 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 10:35:17