CRL.M.C. 3070/2026 $~28 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010170232026 + CRL.M.C. 3070/2026 & CRL.M.A. 12485/2026 AJMER SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Suhail Khan, Advocate. versus STATE (NOT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP SI Arti. Mr. Ritik Chauhan, Advocate for R2 to R4. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 106/2026, dated 23.02.2026, registered at Police Station Begam Pur, District Rohini, Delhi, under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/74/75/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a settlement between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ritik Chauhan, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 3. Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are present in Court, while petitioner No. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:34 CRL.M.C. 3070/2026 2 is present through video conference. They have been identified by their learned counsel, and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are also present in Court, while respondent No. 3 is present through video conference. They have also been identified by their learned counsel and the IO. 4. The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. The parties are stated to be neighbours, and known to each other for several years. The impugned FIR came to be registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 - complainant. The allegations arising out of the FIR are that on 21.02.2026 at about 8:00 PM, while the respondent No. 2 was at his office, he was abused and assaulted by a neighbour and his associates. It was further alleged that respondent No. 2’s office partner [respondent No. 4] and her brother [respondent No. 3], who reached the office, were also assaulted, and respondent No. 4 was touched inappropriately. 6. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by way of a Settlement Deed dated 26.02.2026. 7. In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are present, state that the injuries had no lasting consequences, and there are no subsisting grievances. Respondent No. 4 also categorically states that the allegations under Sections 74/75 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:34 CRL.M.C. 3070/2026 BNS arose from a misunderstanding, in the context of the neighbourhood disputes. 9. I am informed that the Medico-Legal Case of the injured persons were not complete, in as much as, the injured persons did not appear for further examination, and the nature of injuries have not been opined. The injuries are, however, stated to be simple in nature and it appears that no sharp weapon or firearm was used in the commission of the alleged offence. The statement under Section 183 of BNSS also does not disclose any facts in support of the prosecution case, as the parties had already settled. 10. Even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a settlement between the parties. 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 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:34 CRL.M.C. 3070/2026 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 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 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:34 CRL.M.C. 3070/2026 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.”4 11. The present case stems from a dispute between neighbours. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably by way of a settlement. The injuries sustained by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are stated to be simple in nature, and there are no lasting consequences. There are no allegations of using a sharp weapon or firearm. Respondent No. 4 has also stated that the allegations under Sections 74/75 of BNS arose out of a misunderstanding. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the present case warrants the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as such an order would advance the 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:34 CRL.M.C. 3070/2026 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 further noted that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have categorically affirmed before this Court 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. The petition is, accordingly, allowed, and FIR No. 106/2026, dated 23.02.2026, registered at Police Station Begam Pur, District Rohini, Delhi, under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/74/75/3(5) of BNS, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/-, to be paid by the petitioners collectively, with Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within four weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance be filed within two weeks thereafter. 14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15. The petition, alongwith the pending application, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 11, 2026 SS/MK/ 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 17/08/2026 at 11:20:34