CRL.M.C. 5819/2026 $~87-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010366652026 + CRL.M.C. 5819/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24286/2026 PRAVEEN@GUDDU@PARVEEN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mayank Mahal, Advocate. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Mr. Narendera Kumar, Advocate. SI Priyanka, PS- Shahdara. Ms. Sakshi Shukla, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 11.08.2026 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. 276/2018, dated 09.10.2018, registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 354/354D/506/509 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. Ms. Sakshi Shukla, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 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 11:20:26 CRL.M.C. 5819/2026 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 present through video conference, and is identified by her learned counsel as well as by the IO. 4. The impugned FIR is registered upon the complaint of respondent No. 2. The allegations in the FIR are that, on 09.10.2018, at about 6–7 PM, while respondent No. 2 was purchasing clothes from a roadside stall, the petitioner, who runs an ironing stall near her house, made obscene gestures towards her, assaulted her physically, and asked her to accompany him somewhere else. When she refused, the petitioner allegedly caught her hand, and threatened her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She further alleged that about 1-2 months earlier, the petitioner had also followed her up to Sahibabad, while she was travelling to Ghaziabad from Shahdara, causing her fear. 5. A chargesheet has been filed in these proceedings. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.03.2026. 7. 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. Respondent No. 2, who is present through video conference, categorically states that she has accepted the apology of the petitioner, and has no subsisting grievance against him. She also states that she has shifted out of the locality and is now resident in Gujarat. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, learned counsel on both sides seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 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 11:20:26 CRL.M.C. 5819/2026 9. 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. 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 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 11:20:26 CRL.M.C. 5819/2026 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 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 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 11:20:26 CRL.M.C. 5819/2026 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. 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 an incident of more than eight years ago. No similar complaint has subsequently been made against the petitioner. The parties have since settled their disputes, and respondent No.2 has also expressed her inclination not to proceed with the criminal proceedings, and also shifted out of the locality, and relocated to Gujarat. 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. 12. However, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to impose a condition upon the petitioner to undertake community service. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances above, the petitioner is therefore directed to perform community service of six sessions of two 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 11:20:26 CRL.M.C. 5819/2026 hours each at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. He will report to the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital on 19.08.2026 at 10:00 AM. The Medical Superintendent is requested to fix a schedule for the performance of the community service and assign suitable duties to the petitioner. 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. 14. Subject to the aforesaid condition, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 276/2018, dated 09.10.2018, registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 354/354D/506/509 of IPC, alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 15. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 16. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 11, 2026 “B”/AD/ 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 11:20:26