$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010332712026 + CRL.M.C. 5309/2026 DEEPAK YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Pranav, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State. Mr. Dharmender, ASI with SI Pankaj Kumar, PS: Jyoti Nagar. Mr. Ankush, Ms. Trapta and Mr. Manish, Advocates for R-3 & 4. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’], corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 203/2016 dated 05.04.2016, registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. 2. The FIR in question arose out of a motor accident which resulted in 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 18/09/2026 at 11:09:32 the death of the husband of respondent no. 2, and the father of respondent nos. 3 and 4, on account of which the FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. An award of Rs. 20,58,528/- has been passed in favour of the private respondents under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. By an order dated 28.07.2026, this Court had declined to accept the settlement amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- had already been paid), observing that the sum appeared to be meagre for the settlement of a case where a person had lost his life, and granted time to the petitioner to take instructions. 4. Pursuant to the observations made in the said order dated 28.07.2026, the amount of settlement has been enhanced to Rs. 10,00,000/-, of which Rs. 6,00,000/- had already been paid, and the balance of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been paid during the course of the hearing by way of two Demand Drafts bearing Nos.502512 dated 14.09.2026 and 502472 dated 16.07.2026 both drawn on ICICI Bank. The entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has, thus, been paid to the respondents. 5. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner has further agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, over and above the amount already paid. 6. In all, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are the wife and children of the deceased, shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the petitioner towards the settlement, pursuant to which the quashing of the FIR is sought. 7. The additional sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be paid within a period of six months from today. 8. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the acknowledgement of the 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 18/09/2026 at 11:09:32 said payment, on or before 15.03.2027, before the concerned SHO. 9. On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the quashing of the FIR in question, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 10. Notwithstanding that certain offences are classified as non- compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS), may quash such proceedings on account of a settlement between the parties. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,1 the Supreme Court recognised that such a course serves the ends of justice by bringing the litigation to an end and preventing its needless continuation, and by acknowledging that, following the compromise, the likelihood of conviction becomes remote and bleak. 11. The conditions and pre-requisites for such quashing were elaborated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,2 wherein it was, inter alia, observed that quashing on the basis of a settlement may be considered where there is hardly any likelihood of conviction in view of the compromise, particularly in disputes that are predominantly civil in nature; where the refusal to quash would defeat the ends of justice, or render the continuation of the proceedings unfair, unjust or an abuse of the process of the Court; and having due regard to the timing of the compromise, such quashing being ordinarily considered at the stage of investigation or early trial. 12. The aforesaid proposition was refined in Vijay Kumar Kela v. CBI,3 clarifying that it is ultimately the facts and circumstances of each case that determine the compoundability of the proceedings, that no straight-jacket formula can be prescribed, and that, before exercising its powers, the Court 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466. 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1003. 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 18/09/2026 at 11:09:32 must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. 13. In view of the aforesaid, and bearing in mind the nature of the dispute, the settlement arrived at between the parties, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is directed that, upon production of the acknowledgement of the payment of the additional sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- before the concerned SHO, the FIR No. 203/2016, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, shall stand quashed. 14. The petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 P/Adi 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 18/09/2026 at 11:09:32