W.P.(CRL) 2105/2026 $~85-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2105/2026 & CRL.M.A. 21087/2026 MUSHAHID .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohammad Yusuf, Advocate. versus THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.) with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Shubham Goyal, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advocates. Respondent No. 2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 331/2026 dated 12.06.2026, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections 75(2)/77/78(2)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned Additional Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2, appears in person, and accepts notice. She declines the assistance of counsel, including Legal Aid counsel. 3. The petitioner is present in Court, and has been identified by his 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 25/07/2026 at 12:08:32 W.P.(CRL) 2105/2026 learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition discloses that the FIR arises out of a personal relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, which lasted for approximately eight years. Respondent No. 2 has made serious allegations in the FIR, including an allegation that she was threatened by the petitioner on 09.06.2026, and that the petitioner was carrying a gun. 5. The parties have since settled their disputes by way of a General Agreement dated 25.06.2026. The agreement inter alia records the undertaking of the petitioner not to publish any photographs, videos, information, or other material relating to respondent No. 2, to delete such material which may be in his possession, and not to contact her in any way. 6. The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure of any kind. 7. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 8. The petitioner has undertaken before this Court to abide by the terms of the agreement. In fact, Mr. Mohammad Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioner, states upon instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, that he proposes to leave the country and reside in the United Arab Emirates. 9. Respondent No. 2 has clearly stated to the Court that she does not wish to pursue the allegations, as she intends to get married, and pendency of a case of this nature would hamper her future matrimonial 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 25/07/2026 at 12:08:32 W.P.(CRL) 2105/2026 life. Mr. Tyagi also states that the allegation that the petitioner threatened respondent No. 2 with a gun, was not repeated in her statement recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”]. A copy of the said statement was handed over in Court, and is taken on record. 10. The Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate circumstances, High Courts, while exercising their extraordinary powers, may quash criminal proceedings, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, where a compromise has been reached between the accused and the complainant, particularly when no overriding public interest is adversely affected. 11. 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, 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 25/07/2026 at 12:08:32 W.P.(CRL) 2105/2026 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 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. 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 25/07/2026 at 12:08:32 W.P.(CRL) 2105/2026 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 12. While the allegations in the impugned FIR are undoubtedly serious, it appears that they stem from misunderstandings arising in the aftermath of a personal relationship between the parties. The allegation of respondent No. 2, that she was threatened with a gun, in fact, does not find place in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS at all. The parties have since amicably settled their disputes and have decided to part ways. In accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is also relevant to note that respondent No. 2 has affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings is unlikely to result in a conviction and would serve no practical purpose, while only adding to the burden on the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the petition is 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 25/07/2026 at 12:08:32 W.P.(CRL) 2105/2026 allowed, and FIR No. 331/2026 dated 12.06.2026, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections 75(2)/77/78(2)/351(2) of the BNS, alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. However, in view of the circumstances giving rise to the impugned FIR, I accept Mr. Tyagi’s suggestion that costs be imposed upon the petitioner, and he be directed to undertake community service. The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association [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. 15. The petitioner is also directed to perform community service for six sessions of three hours each, over the next two months. For this purpose, he shall report to the Medical Superintendent, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, on 27.07.2026 at 11:30 AM. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties to him, and to issue a certificate of compliance upon completion of the aforesaid period. The petitioner shall place the same on record within two weeks thereafter. 16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 17. The petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 21, 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 25/07/2026 at 12:08:32