CRL.M.C. 5703/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~87 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010358872026 + CRL.M.C. 5703/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23824/2026 KABEER CHOUDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, Advocate, alongwith petitioner in person. versus STATE (THE NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Kiran Dayal. Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Advocate for R2, alongwith R2 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 10.08.2026 1. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 277/2025, dated 14.05.2025, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District West, Delhi, under Sections 354D/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. As recorded in the order dated 06.08.2026, Ms. Arshiya Ghose, learned counsel, was 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 14/08/2026 at 11:58:38 CRL.M.C. 5703/2026 Page 2 of 7 requested to assist respondent No. 2 - complainant. 3. The petitioner is present in Court and is identified by his learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by the IO. 4. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were known to each other since their school days in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. It appears that their relationship ran into some difficulties after respondent No. 2 shifted to Delhi in the year 2022. There are various allegations in the FIR against the petitioner, including allegations of physical abuse and mental harassment, unwanted messaging, etc. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed, and I am informed that the proceedings before the Trial Court are at the stage of framing of charges. 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered into Compromise Deeds dated 01.12.2025 and 22.05.2026, which were signed in the presence of their guardians. It is stated therein that the parties have compromised their disputes, and that respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the subject criminal proceedings. 6. Ms. Ghose states, upon instructions from respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, that the allegations in the FIR arose out of a deterioration in their relationship, and the respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the allegations against the petitioner, as she has resolved the matter with the petitioner, and is at a crucial stage in her personal and professional life. 7. Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from the petitioner, who is also present 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 14/08/2026 at 11:58:38 CRL.M.C. 5703/2026 Page 3 of 7 Court, states that the petitioner will abide by the terms of the Compromise Deeds. 8. Although it is not mentioned in the Compromise Deeds, the parties categorically state before the Court that they will not contact each other in future. 9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, fear or pressure of any kind. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, learned counsel on both sides seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 11. The Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate circumstances, High Courts, while exercising their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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. 12. 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 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 14/08/2026 at 11:58:38 CRL.M.C. 5703/2026 Page 4 of 7 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.”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 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 14/08/2026 at 11:58:38 CRL.M.C. 5703/2026 Page 5 of 7 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.”4 13. Having regard to the aforesaid authorities and the facts of the present case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for quashing of the FIR. The allegations in the FIR stem from a personal relationship which commenced during the parties’ childhood. They have since settled their disputes, and respondent No.2 has also expressed her inclination not to 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 14/08/2026 at 11:58:38 CRL.M.C. 5703/2026 Page 6 of 7 proceed with the criminal proceedings. The parties have signified their intention not to contact each other and to proceed with their lives independently. The entire conspectus of facts does not reveal any public element which requires the criminal proceedings to be taken to their logical conclusion. Respondent No.2 has also accepted the compromise, and the chances of conviction are, therefore, remote. 14. However, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to impose a condition upon the petitioner to undertake community service. 15. I am informed that the petitioner is now a resident of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner is therefore directed to perform community service of eight sessions of three hours each at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University Campus, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh - 202001. He will report to the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital on 17.08.2026 at 11AM. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties to the petitioner, and fix a schedule for the performance of the community service. The community service be completed within a period of two months thereafter. The Medical Superintendent is requested to issue a certificate of compliance upon completion of the community service. The petitioner shall place the said certificate on record within two weeks thereafter. 16. Subject to the aforesaid condition, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 277/2025, dated 14.05.2025, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District West, Delhi, under Sections 354D/509/506 of IPC, alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. I am 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 14/08/2026 at 11:58:38 CRL.M.C. 5703/2026 Page 7 of 7 informed that criminal proceedings are listed before the Trial Court today. The IO is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court. 18. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly, stands disposed of. 19. The Court expresses its appreciation to Ms. Ghose for her assistance in the matter. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 10, 2026 SS/MK/ 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 14/08/2026 at 11:58:38