CRL.M.C. 726/2026 $~60-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010027982026 + CRL.M.C. 726/2026 CHAITANYA @ RAJA & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Madhav Kundra and Sarthak Tomar, Advocates alongwith Petitioners in Person. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Rashmi and ASI Kishan Bir, P.S. Vijay Vihar. Ms. Maahi Tomar, Advocate for R2 and R3 with R2 in Person, R3 through VC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 19.08.2026 1. The petitioners have preferred 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. 101/2023, dated 05.03.2023, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, District Rohini, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 323/324/341/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:49 CRL.M.C. 726/2026 arising therefrom, on the basis of a settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioners are present in Court, and have been duly identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court, and respondent No. 3 is present through video conference. They have also been identified by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. 3. The parties are neighbours and belong to the same family. The impugned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of respondent No. 2, who alleged that, on 04.03.2023, at about 10:15 PM, while he was returning home after closing his shop, petitioner No. 1 restrained him. Thereafter, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 joined petitioner No. 1, and respondent No. 3 came to rescue respondent No. 2, whereupon a scuffle ensued between the parties. 4. The Medico-Legal Certificates characterise the nature of injuries suffered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as ‘simple’. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 323/324/341/34 of the IPC. Respondent No. 2 was a minor at the time of the incident, but has since attained the age of majority. 5. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.11.2025. The settlement, which has been entered into without any monetary consideration, records that the parties are family members and wish to settle the disputes. 6. Although there is an allegation of use of a sharp weapon on one of the injured persons, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are present before the Court and represented by counsel, confirm that the injuries had no lasting consequence, and that they are satisfied with the terms of the settlement. 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:49 CRL.M.C. 726/2026 7. Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, and without any coercion or undue influence. 8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 9. 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 under Section 528 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC] 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 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. 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:49 CRL.M.C. 726/2026 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 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 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:49 CRL.M.C. 726/2026 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 10. The present case stems from a dispute between family members, who reside in the same locality. The parties have since resolved their disputes amicably. Although there is an allegation of use of a sharp weapon, the injuries sustained by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be simple in nature, and there are no lasting consequences. 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 ends of justice by enabling the parties to live in peace and harmony rather than perpetuating animosity. 11. Applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is further noted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 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 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:49 CRL.M.C. 726/2026 formality, thereby unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and leading to the avoidable consumption of public resources. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 101/2023, dated 05.03.2023, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, District Rohini, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the petitioners collectively to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch]. The costs be deposited within four weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance be filed within two weeks thereafter. 13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 14. The petition is accordingly disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 19, 2026 ‘pv/KA’/ 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 24/08/2026 at 10:42:49