CRL.M.C. 5119/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~88 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5119/2026 MR. PUSHPAK BIDHURI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. Ms. Urvashi Jain and Mr. Aman Bidhuri, Advocates for R2. SI Sonu Kumar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 142/2024, dated 23.02.2024, registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, District South-East, Delhi, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a settlement between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Urvashi Jain, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:27 CRL.M.C. 5119/2026 Page 2 of 6 3. The parties are present in Court, and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. 4. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 reside in the same locality and are also members of the same extended family. 5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who alleged that on 22.02.2024 at about 10:00 p.m., he was restrained by the petitioners and was assaulted with iron rods and sticks, resulting in injuries, including a head injury. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 323/341/506/308/34 of the IPC. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.07.2026 [“MoU”]. The MoU records that the FIR came to be registered on account of certain misunderstandings, and that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, and without any monetary consideration. 7. Although respondent No. 2 sustained injuries on the head, which led to the invocation of Section 308 of the IPC, the chargesheet has clarified the nature of injuries as “simple/blunt”. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court and represented by learned counsel, states that he has fully recovered, and that there are no lasting injuries or damage. Further, there is no allegation of use of any sharp weapon or firearms. 8. Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. 9. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:27 CRL.M.C. 5119/2026 Page 3 of 6 10. Even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC], 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. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, 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 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:27 CRL.M.C. 5119/2026 Page 4 of 6 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. 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. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:27 CRL.M.C. 5119/2026 Page 5 of 6 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 11. The present case stems from a dispute between members of an extended family, which has since been resolved amicably. The injuries sustained by respondent No. 2 are stated to be simple in nature, and there are no lasting consequences. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the present case warrants the exercise of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction, as such an order would advance the ends of justice by enabling the parties to live in peace and harmony rather than perpetuating animosity. 12. Applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is also noted that respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily. In the given factual matrix, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to culminate in a conviction and would amount to an empty formality, thereby unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and leading to the avoidable consumption of public resources. 13. As noted above, although the settlement has been arrived at without any monetary consideration, respondent No. 2 has affirmed his satisfaction therewith. There is, therefore, no impediment in granting the relief sought. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:27 CRL.M.C. 5119/2026 Page 6 of 6 14. The petition is, accordingly, allowed, and FIR No. 142/2024, dated 23.02.2024, registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, District South-East, Delhi, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 15. However, having regard to the circumstances giving rise to the impugned FIR and the nature of allegations therein, the petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with 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 from today. A compliance affidavit shall be filed within two weeks thereafter. 16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 17. The petition is accordingly disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 23, 2026 SS/AN/ 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:27