W.P.(CRL) 2740/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~115 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010420432026 + W.P.(CRL) 2740/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27611/2026 SHRAVAN KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Gaurav Bindal, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP, Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates. SI Vikram and SI Mohit. Mr. Ajay, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. The present petition is filed 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. 586/2025 dated 15.12.2025, registered under Sections 110/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], at Police Station Timarpur, District North, Delhi, alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State, and Mr. Ajay, 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 14/09/2026 at 18:00:43 W.P.(CRL) 2740/2026 Page 2 of 7 3. The petitioners are present through video conference and are identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conference and is duly identified by his learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, alleging that he runs a tea shop at Vardhman Mall and that, near his shop, there is another stall operated by petitioner No. 1. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 had, for several days, been troubling respondent No. 2 over allegations regarding the quality of ingredients used in his tea. On 14.12.2025, at about 11:25 p.m., a minor verbal spat took place between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 closed his shop and returned approximately 20-25 minutes later with a group of boys, identified as petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 herein. It is alleged that they abused respondent No. 2 and, before he could respond, assaulted him with rods and sticks. During the assault, two other persons, namely, Praveen Kumar and Vikram Singh, who intervened to help respondent No. 2, were also beaten, and damage was caused to the goods in his shop. 5. The police reached the spot pursuant to the incident and found that respondent No. 2 had been taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, where his Medico-Legal Certificate [“MLC”] was prepared. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Senior Counsel, has handed over the said MLC, which is taken on record. The MLC, inter alia, records lacerations on the forehead and parietal region. 6. Although two other persons, namely, Praveen Kumar and Vikram Singh, are also mentioned as victims in the FIR, Mr. Lao submits, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, that 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 18:00:43 W.P.(CRL) 2740/2026 Page 3 of 7 neither of them sustained any injury or subjected himself to medical examination. Respondent No. 2 is, therefore, the only injured person in respect of whom the present proceedings were instituted. The chargesheet has also been filed only against the petitioners herein and is confined to the injury allegedly sustained by respondent No. 2. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their disputes by way of a Settlement/Compromise Agreement dated 24.12.2025, pursuant to which the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 affirms that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence, and further states that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 8. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. In view of the aforesaid settlement, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 9. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings, including those relating to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably settled their disputes, provided that such exercise of jurisdiction does not adversely affect any overriding public interest. 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 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 14/09/2026 at 18:00:43 W.P.(CRL) 2740/2026 Page 4 of 7 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 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 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 14/09/2026 at 18:00:43 W.P.(CRL) 2740/2026 Page 5 of 7 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 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 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 18:00:43 W.P.(CRL) 2740/2026 Page 6 of 7 11. The allegations in the present case arise out of a scuffle between parties who were admittedly known to each other and whose stalls are situated next to each other. The injuries sustained by respondent No. 2 are recorded in the MLC as simple in nature, and the incident did not involve the use of any sharp-edged object or firearm. Although two other persons are referred to as having been present during the incident, neither sustained any injury nor underwent medical examination, and the chargesheet has been filed only in respect of the injury allegedly sustained by respondent No. 2. The present case, therefore, does not involve allegations of a nature which would warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings notwithstanding the subsequent settlement between the parties. 12. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes and intend to maintain cordial relations going forward. Respondent No. 2, who is personally present before the Court, has categorically affirmed the settlement, stated that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners, and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. He has also received Rs. 15,000/- pursuant to the settlement. In these circumstances, the possibility of conviction appears remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only perpetuate the dispute between the parties. This Court is also satisfied that quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings would not adversely affect any overriding public interest and would, in the facts of the present case, secure the ends of justice. 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 18:00:43 W.P.(CRL) 2740/2026 Page 7 of 7 13. The petition is, therefore, allowed, and FIR No. 586/2025 dated 15.12.2025, registered at Police Station Timarpur, District North, Delhi, under Sections 110/3(5) of the BNS, alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15. The petition, alongwith the pending applications, accordingly stand disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 SS/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 14/09/2026 at 18:00:43