CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 $~93 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 SH. HIMANSHU RATHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advocate, along with Petitioner in person versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State. SI Sunil Kumar, PS Kapashera. [M:-8527370678] Mr. Yogesh, Advocate for R-2, along with R-2 on Video Conference [“VC”]. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 21.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 21197/2026 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A. 21198/2026 (Condonation of delay in re-filing) The petitioner has filed the present application seeking condonation of 15 days’ delay in re-filing the captioned petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in re-filing the petition is condoned. The application is accordingly disposed of. CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], corresponding 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 24/07/2026 at 12:03:31 CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”], seeking quashing of FIR No. 356/2024 dated 05.09.2024, registered at Police Station Kapashera, District South West, Delhi, under Sections 118(2)/126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 [“Arms Act”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Yogesh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by his learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is present through video conference and has likewise been identified by his learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The allegations, as set out in the FIR, are that on 05.09.2024, the complainant [respondent No. 2 herein] was driving his employer’s car after picking up his employer’s daughter from school. It is alleged that, near Bijwasan Toll Tax, the complainant was intercepted by the petitioner, who was riding a motorcycle. A quarrel is stated to have thereafter ensued on account of a dispute regarding the complainant giving way on the road, during which the petitioner allegedly abused and assaulted the complainant and subsequently attacked him with a knife, causing a stab injury to his abdomen. The injured complainant was thereafter taken to Manipal Hospital, where his MLC was prepared. The petitioner was, in the meantime, apprehended at the spot by members of the public and handed over to the police, resulting in the registration 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 24/07/2026 at 12:03:31 CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 the FIR. 5. The chargesheet has already been filed, and the proceedings are presently at the stage of prosecution evidence before the learned Magistrate’s Court. 6. In the meantime, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered into a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 14.05.2026. The settlement records that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and that respondent No. 2 shall cooperate with the quashing of the present FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. Respondent No. 2 further states that he has not suffered any permanent injury or disability on account of the incident. 7. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 8. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 9. 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 dispute. 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. 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 24/07/2026 at 12:03:31 CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 10. 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 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 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 24/07/2026 at 12:03:31 CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 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 24/07/2026 at 12:03:31 CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 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 11. The offences alleged in the subject FIR arise out of a sudden altercation. Although a sharp-edged weapon is alleged to have been used during the incident, respondent No. 2 has categorically stated 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, that would warrant the continuation of the criminal proceedings. 12. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is also significant that respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed before the Court that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily. 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. 13. However, having regard to the nature of the offence, I accept the suggestion advanced by Mr. Chauhan that the present case is an appropriate one for the imposition of costs and for directing the petitioner to undertake community service as a condition for quashing the criminal proceedings. 14. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 356/2024 dated 05.09.2024, registered at Police Station 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 24/07/2026 at 12:03:31 CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 Kapashera, District South West, Delhi, under Sections 118(2)/126(2) of the BNS and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards costs and depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch], within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall thereafter file an affidavit, alongwith proof of such payment and deposit, within a further period of one week. 15. The petitioner shall also undertake community service at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, the petitioner shall report to the Medical Superintendent on 29.07.2026 at 11:00 a.m. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties to the petitioner, who shall complete eight sessions of community service, each of three hours’ duration, within a period of three months. Upon completion of the aforesaid community service, the Medical Superintendent is further requested to issue a certificate of compliance, which the petitioner shall place on record before this Court within a period of two weeks thereafter. 16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 17. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 21, 2026 ‘pv’/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 24/07/2026 at 12:03:31