CRL.M.C. 5913/2026 $~97-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010373282026 + CRL.M.C. 5913/2026 KUMARI PRERNA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prem Garg, Advocate. versus THE STATE & ANR. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Sanjay, PS-Sarojini Nagar. Ms. Pooja Jindal, Advocate for R- 2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The petitioner has 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. 584/2025, dated 23.12.2025, registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 115(2)/127 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”] (corresponding to Sections 323/342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]), and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have resolved their inter se differences. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Pooja Jindal, 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 11:58:43 CRL.M.C. 5913/2026 learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner, who is present through video conference, is identified by her learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conference and is identified by his learned counsel and by the Investigating Officer. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner. The allegations therein are that the complainant had known respondent No. 2 for about one year through a common friend and that the parties had developed mutual intimacy. On 20.12.2025, the petitioner came from Mumbai to Delhi and stayed with respondent No. 2 at a hotel. On 23.12.2025, an argument took place between the parties inside the hotel room. During the course of the argument, respondent No. 2 allegedly slapped the petitioner, blocked her way when she attempted to leave, pushed her, causing her to fall, and, when she got up, slapped and beat her. 6. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement with respondent No. 2. Although the parties have not entered into any formal settlement and no separate no-objection statement or settlement deed has been placed on record, the petitioner is personally present before the Court and has unequivocally stated that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against respondent No. 2. She has also addressed a letter dated 18.07.2026 to the Investigating Officer expressing her desire to withdraw the complaint. 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 11:58:43 CRL.M.C. 5913/2026 7. The petitioner is a resident of Mumbai, whereas respondent No. 2 is a resident of Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, who is also the complainant, states before the Court that the relationship between the parties has come to an end, and she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further, as she wishes to move on in life. 8. Respondent No. 2, who is present before the Court through video conference, states that he has apologised to the petitioner. He further assures the Court that he will neither contact the petitioner nor harass her in any manner in future. 9. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS] is of wide amplitude and is intended to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The power may, in appropriate cases, be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the circumstances of the case demonstrate that continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would not further any legitimate public interest. At the same time, such jurisdiction is required to be exercised with due caution, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the impact of the offence upon society. 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 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 11:58:43 CRL.M.C. 5913/2026 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.”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 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 11:58:43 CRL.M.C. 5913/2026 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.”4 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, 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 11:58:43 CRL.M.C. 5913/2026 this Court finds that the circumstances warrant exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The allegations arise from an incident which occurred between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 during the course of their personal relationship, which has since come to an end. The petitioner, who is herself the complainant, has appeared before the Court and categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Her stand is further corroborated by her letter dated 18.07.2026 addressed to the Investigating Officer, whereby she expressed her desire to withdraw the complaint. 12. Respondent No. 2 has appeared before the Court, expressed that he has apologised to the petitioner, and assured the Court that he shall neither contact nor harass her in any manner in future. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are presently residing in Mumbai and Ghaziabad, respectively, and their relationship has since come to an end. These circumstances, viewed cumulatively, indicate that the parties have put the dispute underlying the present FIR behind them and have moved on with their respective lives. 13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve little purpose. The petitioner has unequivocally indicated that she does not wish to prosecute the matter, and there is no material before the Court to suggest that any larger or overriding public interest would be served by compelling the prosecution to continue. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the circumstances in which the FIR came to be registered, and the subsequent developments between the parties, the possibility of the prosecution culminating in a conviction appears remote and bleak. In these 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 11:58:43 CRL.M.C. 5913/2026 circumstances, permitting the proceedings to continue would amount to subjecting the parties to a criminal process which is unlikely to result in any meaningful adjudication and would not further the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 584/2025, dated 23.12.2025, registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 115(2)/127 of the BNS, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to respondent No. 2 depositing costs of Rs. 50,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within two weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two weeks thereafter. 15. The assurance furnished by respondent No. 2 before this Court shall remain binding upon him. 16. The petition, alongwith any pending applications, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 13, 2026 ‘B’/SD/ 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 11:58:43