CRL.M.C. 5904/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~92-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010372392026 + CRL.M.C. 5904/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24616/2026 VAIBHAV SONI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ajay Kashyap, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocates. Petitioners (In Person) versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP SI Manish, PS Rajendra Nagar Appearance not given for R2&R3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 13.08.2026 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. 84/2026, dated 27.03.2026, registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, District Central, Delhi, under Sections 79/351/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], on grounds of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been duly identified 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:41 CRL.M.C. 5904/2026 Page 2 of 6 by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also present in Court and have been identified by their learned counsel and the IO. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, alleging that on 24.03.2026, when respondent No. 2 and her sister [respondent No. 3], were returning from a market at Bada Bazard Marg, the petitioners, sitting in a car, approached respondent Nos. 2 and 3 multiple times, while passing derogatory and obscene comments. 5. A chargesheet has been filed in these proceedings, and the Magistrate’s Court vide order dated 09.06.2026, took cognizance of offences under Sections 79/78/351/3(5) of BNS and issued summons to the petitioners. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement recorded in Memorandum of Understanding-cum- Settlement Agreement dated 12.07.2026. 7. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without force, fraud or coercion. Further, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are present in Court, vehemently submit that pendency of the criminal proceedings is causing harassment and diversion from their professional and personal lives, and that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners any further. 8. In light of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR, alongwith consequential proceedings. 9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:41 CRL.M.C. 5904/2026 Page 3 of 6 (corresponding to Section 482 of 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. 10. 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 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 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:41 CRL.M.C. 5904/2026 Page 4 of 6 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:41 CRL.M.C. 5904/2026 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. In the present case, the offences while deplorable, are not heinous in nature or of such a nature as to preclude the quashing of settlement altogether. The settlement has also been entered into within a few months of the incident. It is also stated that the petitioners have no prior criminal antecedents. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also categorically stated that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners any further, and affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 12. The settlement contemplates a payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, out of which they have already received Rs. 1,75,000/-. The remaining amount, i.e. Rs. 1,75,000/-, has been paid to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Court today. There is therefore no impediment in granting the relief sought. 13. However, having regard to the circumstances giving rise to 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:41 CRL.M.C. 5904/2026 Page 6 of 6 impugned FIR, I accept the suggestion that this is an appropriate case for a direction of community service being imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners are accordingly directed to report to the Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital, on 21.08.2026 at 11:00 AM. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties to the petitioners, either together or separately, for a total of ten sessions of three hours each, within the next three months, which may be scheduled in consultation with the hospital and with regard to the petitioners’ work- related commitments. The Medical Superintendent is requested to issue a certificate of compliance upon completion of the community service. The petitioners shall place the said certificate on record within two weeks thereafter. 14. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 84/2026, dated 27.03.2026, registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, Central Delhi, under Sections 79/351/3(5) of the BNS, alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 15. The petition, alongwith pending application, is accordingly disposed of. 16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 13, 2026 tg/AD/ 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 19/08/2026 at 11:58:41