CRL.M.C. 6608/2026 $~114 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010420302026 + CRL.M.C. 6608/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27604/2026 HILAL AHMED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sujeeta, Advocate. versus THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for R-2. SI Shakti Singh. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. By way of 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”]), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 48/2020 dated 06.02.2020, registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi, under Sections 283 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by his 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 16:04:09 CRL.M.C. 6608/2026 counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been identified by his learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, alleging that on 06.02.2020, at about 5:00 a.m., while returning after fetching water and walking through Gali Tel Mill along with his friend, the wall along with the iron grill of a Delhi Jal Board pump house suddenly collapsed. As a result, respondent No. 2 sustained injuries to his left foot, while his friend escaped unhurt. Respondent No. 2 was thereafter taken to LHMC Hospital, where his Medico-Legal Certificate [“MLC”] recorded tenderness, swelling and abrasion on his left leg. 5. At the time of the incident, the petitioner was employed as a Junior Engineer with the Delhi Jal Board. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet has been filed, however, cognizance has not yet been taken. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their disputes vide Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated 06.06.2026. Although the MoU does not contemplate any monetary settlement, it is submitted that the medical expenses incurred by respondent No. 2 have already been borne by the petitioner, and that all other claims and compensation arising out of the incident have also been amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 7. Both parties are present before the Court and have unequivocally stated that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, of their own free will, and without any force, fraud or coercion. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. He has also stated that the injuries 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 16:04:09 CRL.M.C. 6608/2026 sustained by him have completely healed and have had no lasting impact. 8. 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), is empowered to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably settled their dispute, provided that such exercise of jurisdiction does not impinge upon any overriding public interest. 9. 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:09 CRL.M.C. 6608/2026 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:09 CRL.M.C. 6608/2026 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 10. The aforesaid principles, when applied to the facts of the present case, persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The criminal proceedings arise out of an incident in which a wall and iron grill of a Delhi Jal Board pump house allegedly collapsed, resulting in injuries to respondent No. 2. The allegations do not disclose any deliberate or premeditated act on the part of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also stated before this Court that the injuries sustained by him have completely healed and have caused no lasting impact. The parties have, thereafter, voluntarily resolved all their disputes arising out of the incident. The medical expenses incurred by respondent No. 2 have already been borne by the petitioner, and respondent No. 2, who is personally present before the Court, has unequivocally affirmed the settlement and stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 11. In view of the nature of the allegations and the fact that the parties 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 16:04:09 CRL.M.C. 6608/2026 have completely resolved their disputes, there appears to be little purpose in continuing the criminal proceedings. Respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the matter, and the circumstances in which the incident occurred, coupled with the subsequent settlement and the absence of any lasting injury, render the possibility of conviction remote and bleak. Continuation of the proceedings would, in these circumstances, serve no useful purpose and would result only in further expenditure of judicial time and public resources. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that quashing the proceedings would secure the ends of justice and that no overriding public interest would be prejudiced thereby. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 48/2020 dated 06.02.2020, registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi, under Sections 283 and 337 of the IPC, alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 14. The petition, alongwith pending applications, is accordingly, 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 16:04:09