CRL.M.C. 5148/2026 & connected matter. $~100 & 101-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5148/2026 VICKY AND ORS .....Petitioners versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents + CRL.M.C. 5150/2026 JITU ALIAS JITENDER SHARMA AND ORS .....Petitioners versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Appearances:- Mr. Pramod Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Prince Bhardwaj, Mr. Aditya Tripathi, Mr. Tushar Tripathi, Mr. Vinay, Advocates for petitioners in item No. 100 / respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Item No. 101. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Mr. Aditya Tripathi, Mr. Vinay Tripathi, Mr. Tushar, Advocates for petitioner in item No. 101 / respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in item No. 100. Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with ASI Jitendar and SI Parmendar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 24.07.2026 1. The present petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) seek quashing of cross-FIRs, being FIR No. 182/2026, for offences punishable under Sections 75/115(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”] [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5148/2026], and FIR No. 181/2026, for offences punishable under Sections 75/76/79/115(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS [subject matter 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 28/07/2026 at 11:19:05 CRL.M.C. 5148/2026 & connected matter. CRL.M.C. 5150/2026], both dated 04.07.2026 and lodged at Police Station Karawal Nagar, District North-East, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The petitions are predicated on the ground of a settlement between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State in both the petitions. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant in CRL.M.C. 5148/2026. Mr. Pramod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant in CRL.M.C. 5150/2026. 3. The parties are present, and have been identified by their respective learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officers. 4. The cross-FIRs arise out of an incident dated 03.07.2026 involving a scuffle between the parties, who are neighbours. 5. The complainant in FIR No. 181/2026 [respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 5150/2026], as well as her husband, has been arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 182/2026. Similarly, the complainant in FIR No. 182/2026 [respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 5148/2026], as well as her brother, Shivam, and her mother, Preeti @ Ranjana, have been arraigned as accused in FIR No. 181/2026, and as victims in FIR No. 182/2026. They are present in Court. At the request of Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 5148/2026, Shivam and Preeti @ Ranjana are impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, in the said petition. The amended memo of parties has been handed over in Court and is taken on record. 6. FIR No. 181/2026 also identifies two other victims, namely, Vicky 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 28/07/2026 at 11:19:05 CRL.M.C. 5148/2026 & connected matter. [the complainant’s husband] and Rakhi [the complainant’s sister-in-law]. They are also present in Court. At the request of Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 5150/2026, Vicky and Rakhi are impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, in the said petition. The amended memo of parties has been handed over in Court and is taken on record. 7. While the investigation was ongoing, the parties entered into a Settlement / Compromise Deed dated 09.07.2026. The settlement, which has been entered into without any monetary consideration, records that the cross-FIRs came to be registered due to certain misunderstandings between the parties. 8. The parties state that they continue to live in the same locality and wish to maintain peace, and that they do not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against each other. Affidavits of the respective complainants, signifying their no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, have also been placed on record. 9. Learned counsel for the parties state that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. 10. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIRs. 11. Even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, 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 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 28/07/2026 at 11:19:05 CRL.M.C. 5148/2026 & connected matter. Page 4 of 6 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. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 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.” [Emphasis supplied.] Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6 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 28/07/2026 at 11:19:05 CRL.M.C. 5148/2026 & connected matter. Page 5 of 6 SCC 466], 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. 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.” [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 28/07/2026 at 11:19:05 CRL.M.C. 5148/2026 & connected matter. Page 6 of 6 12. The present matters arise from cross-FIRs lodged by neighbours in relation to the same incident, which appear to have emanated from a sudden neighbourhood quarrel. As noted above, the parties continue to reside in the neighbourhood. In these circumstances, quashing of the impugned FIR would enable the parties to live in peace and harmony, rather than compound the animosity. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be noted that the complainants have also categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. It may also be noted that the settlement was arrived at within four days of registration of the FIRs. The continuation of the criminal proceedings is, therefore, unlikely to result in a conviction, and would constitute an unnecessary diversion of judicial resources. 13. The petitions are therefore allowed, and FIR No. 182/2026, for offences punishable under Sections 75/115(2)/3(5) of the BNS [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5148/2026], and FIR No. 181/2026, for offences punishable under Sections 75/76/79/115(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5150/2026], both dated 04.07.2026 and lodged at Police Station Karawal Nagar, District North-East, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed 14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 24, 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 28/07/2026 at 11:19:05