CRL.M.C. 6652/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~97 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010424652026 + CRL.M.C. 6652/2026 ANSHU & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Avinash Chand Magan, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. Ms. Anjali Singh Chauhan, Mr. Suyash Raj, Advocates for R2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 09.09.2026 1. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 123/2025, dated 24.02.2025, registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 118 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a settlement between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Anjali Singh Chauhan, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioners are present before the Court and have been duly 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:39 CRL.M.C. 6652/2026 Page 2 of 6 identified by the Investigating Officer [“IO”] as well as by their learned counsel. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and has also been identified by the IO as well as by their learned counsel. 4. The impugned FIR was registered on the compliant of respondent No. 2, who alleged that on 17.02.2025, while he was travelling in a car with his friends, another car [bearing registration No. DL-11CC-4647], carrying 3–4 persons, stopped near them and its occupants alleged that their vehicle had been sideswiped and its bumper damaged. When respondent No. 2 and his friends denied the allegation, an altercation ensued, during which the accused persons allegedly assaulted them. One of the accused allegedly struck respondent No. 2 with a sharp object on the left side of his waist, causing injuries to his neck and chest, as a result of which he lost consciousness. 5. A chargesheet has also been filed. 6. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by way of a Memorandum of Settlement executed between them on 16.04.2026. 7. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 8. Although the injury was serious in nature, respondent No. 2 is present in Court, and states that he has since recovered from his injuries, and that there are no lasting consequences or permanent disability of any sort. Respondent No. 2 also confirms that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 9. In light of the aforesaid, the parties 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:39 CRL.M.C. 6652/2026 Page 3 of 6 10. 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 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. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:39 CRL.M.C. 6652/2026 Page 4 of 6 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. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:39 CRL.M.C. 6652/2026 Page 5 of 6 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. The present case arises out of a dispute stemming from a sudden altercation following a road accident. The parties are all young, aged approximately between 21 and 26 years, and are preparing for various competitive examinations. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by way of a settlement. Although the injuries sustained by respondent No. 2 are stated to be serious in nature, they have not resulted in any lasting consequences. Applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is further noted that respondent No. 2 has 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 formality, thereby unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and leading to the avoidable consumption of public resources. 12. The settlement contemplates a payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the petitioners to respondent No. 2, which already stands paid. There is therefore no impediment in granting the relief sought. 13. The petition is, accordingly, allowed, FIR No. 123/2025, dated 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:39 CRL.M.C. 6652/2026 Page 6 of 6 24.02.2025, registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. Having regard to the circumstances giving rise to the impugned FIR and the nature of allegations therein, the present case warrants the imposition of an order of community service upon the petitioners. The petitioners are accordingly directed to report to the Medical Superintendent, Burari Hospital, Kaushik Enclave on 14.09.2026 at 11:00 AM., who shall assign them suitable duties and tasks for 3 hours a day for 6 sessions, to be completed within the next two months. The nature, and timing of such duties shall be determined by the Medical Superintendent, and may be assigned to each of the petitioners separately or together. The petitioners shall file compliance affidavits, alongwith a certificate issued by the said hospital, within one week thereafter. 15. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 16. The petition, alongwith the pending applications, is accordingly disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 SS/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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:39