$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5165/2026 and CRL.M.A. 21697/2026 MR AGAM GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Mr. Samraat Saxena, Mr. Dev Vrat Arya, Ms. Deeya Mittal, Ms. Anuradha, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. Mr. Jujhar Singh, Mr. Bhooshan Dev Singh Pawar, Mr. Bhushan Arora, Mr. Shreyas Malik, Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Kanav Manghani Advocates along with respondents in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 24.07.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.162/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 281/106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Defence Colony, Delhi, on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.07.2026. 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:25 2. The facts, in brief, are that an accident occurred on 03.10.2025, pursuant to which FIR No.162/2025 came to be registered on 06.10.2025 against an unknown person under Sections 281/106(1) BNS. During the course of treatment, the injured, namely Late Mr. Lovely, succumbed to his injuries on 07.10.2025. Upon completion of investigation, the petitioner was found to be the alleged offending driver and a chargesheet dated 02.12.2025 came to be filed against him, whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned JMFC, Saket Courts. 3. The petitioner is present in Court along with the Counsel. Respondent No.2, namely Ms. Radhika Ghimre, wife of the deceased, and Respondent No.3, namely Ms. Natho, mother of the deceased, are also present in Court along with their counsel. They have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer as well as by their respective learned counsel. Respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are the brothers of the deceased, are also present before this Court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased have amicably resolved all their disputes by executing a Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.07.2026. 5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that they have entered into the settlement voluntarily of their own free will and without any pressure, coercion or inducement. They further state that they do not wish to pursue the present criminal proceedings and have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 6. It appears from the record that the parties have settled all their disputes for a total consideration of ₹65,00,000/-. Out of the settled amount, a sum of ₹33,00,000/- has already been paid. During the course of hearing, 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:25 the balance amount of ₹32,00,000/- has been handed over by way of two demand drafts drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, one in favour of Respondent No.2, Ms. Radhika Ghimre, bearing DD No.997184 for a sum of ₹16,00,000/-, and the other in favour of Respondent No.3, Ms. Natho, bearing DD No.997186 for a sum of ₹16,00,000/-. 7. On behalf of the State there is no opposition in quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondents and the statement of the respondent no.2 and 3. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr.1 vide paragraph no.29 has held 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 1 (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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:25 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 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 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:25 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.” 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another2, vide paragraph no.61 has held 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, 2 (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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:25 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 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.” 10. The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh (supra) and Gian Singh (supra) make it abundantly clear that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, this Court is required to examine whether the continuance of criminal proceedings would secure the ends of justice or amount to an abuse of the process of law. Though the offence under Sections 281/106(1) of the BNS is non-compoundable, the inherent powers of this Court are not curtailed where the facts and circumstances justify exercise of such jurisdiction. The entire civil consequences arising out of the unfortunate incident, including the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, have also been amicably resolved. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are present before this Court, have categorically stated that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. In these circumstances, the possibility of the criminal proceedings serving any meaningful purpose is extremely remote. Rather, continuation thereof, despite the complete settlement between the parties, would only result in 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:25 unnecessary prolongation of litigation. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present case is a fit one for exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure the ends of justice. 11. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, volunteers that the petitioner shall pay an additional amount of ₹5,00,000/-, over and above the settled amount of ₹65,00,000/-, to the family of the deceased. It is directed that out of the said amount, ₹1,00,000/- shall be paid to Respondent No.2 and ₹4,00,000/- shall be paid to Respondent No.3. 12. The proof of payment of the aforesaid additional amount shall be furnished before the concerned SHO. Upon being satisfied regarding compliance thereof, FIR No.162/2025 registered under Sections 281/106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Defence Colony, Delhi, the chargesheet dated 02.12.2025 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed. 13. The petition, along with the pending application(s), stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 24, 2026 Aks/SS 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:25