CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 1 of 9 $~96-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010441372026 + CRL.M.C. 6881/2026, CRL.M.A. 28829/2026, CRL.M.A. 28830/2026 SANJAY KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Ms. Priya Jha, Mr. Aayushman Shukla, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr Hitesh Vali, APP SI Ashish Yadav, PS Tughlak Road Ms. Neeru, Advocate. for R-2&3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The petitioner has approached this Court 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. 172/2024 dated 07.11.2024, registered at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi, under Sections 290/125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Neeru accepts 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15 CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 2 of 9 notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the mother and brother, respectively, of the deceased. 3. The petitioner is present in Court and is identified by his learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The present FIR arises out of an incident that occurred on 07.11.2024 at Kothi No. 7, Rajasthan Bhawan, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi, where one Asraf Alam allegedly fell from a height while working at the premises. A PCR call was received at about 1:24 P.M., pursuant to which the injured was taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre and his MLC was prepared. The MLC records the history of injury as a fall from a height of approximately seven feet. The premises were found to be under construction, with work relating to the laying of the roof slab and tying of iron rods being carried out on the first floor. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed. In view of the deceased having succumbed to his injuries, the charge under Section 125(a) of the BNS was dropped and Section 106(1) of the BNS was added. The chargesheet records that M/s Priya Realty & Infra Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, i.e. the petitioner herein, had been engaged as a subcontractor for construction-related work at the site. The deceased was employed as a labourer by the said company and was working on the first floor when he allegedly fell from a height during the course of the construction work. The post-mortem report records the cause of death as head injury and its complications caused by blunt force. 6. I am informed that cognizance of the offences was taken by 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15 CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 3 of 9 learned Magistrate’s Court on 12.03.2026, pursuant to which summons were issued to the petitioner. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement, which was reduced into writing by way of a Settlement Deed dated 11.11.2024 executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, being the mother of the deceased. In terms of the said settlement, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to respondent Nos. 2. It was also recorded that the death of the deceased had occurred on account of an accident and that the petitioner had borne expenses of Rs. 85,000/- towards ambulance, travel, food and cremation. 8. Mr. Vali, however, submits that the compensation payable upon computation in terms of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 [“the Act”] would be substantially higher than the amount stipulated in the Settlement Deed. 9. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the compensation payable under the Act, which has been computed by him, at Rs. 16,15,000/-. He submits that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 9,35,000/- to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which includes the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- stipulated under the Settlement Deed. He further confirms that, in terms of thereof, balance sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- has been paid to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 today. 10. Ms. Neeru submits, on instructions, that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 acknowledge receipt of all the aforesaid amounts, are satisfied with the settlement and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. She further submits that they have no grievance against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid statement, the settlement arrived at between the parties is 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15 CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 4 of 9 accepted. 11. Learned counsel for the parties thus seek quashing of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 12. The Supreme Court has clearly held that even in the case of non- compoundable offences, the Court may take into account all the facts and circumstances and quash the proceedings in appropriate cases on the ground of a compromise. 13. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15 CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 5 of 9 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15 CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 6 of 9 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 14. The mere fact that Section 290 of BNS [corresponding to Section 288 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]] and Section 106(1) BNS [corresponding to Section 304-A of IPC] are non-compoundable does not, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings. 15. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others5, the Supreme Court held that, while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to consider, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the material collected during investigation and whether the offence has an impact on society at large so as to transcend the personal dispute between the parties. The Supreme Court has further cautioned against adopting a mechanical approach merely on account of the penal provision invoked and has emphasised that the allegations and material on record must be examined in their 4 Emphasis supplied. 5 (2019) 5 SCC 688, paragraph 15.5. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15 CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 7 of 9 entirety. 16. This Court has also, in a catena of decisions, considered the circumstances in which its inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to quash proceedings even in cases involving an offence under Section 304A of the IPC. In Babu Khan and Anr. v. State and Ors.6, this Court observed as follows: “20. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had explained that for a negligent act to constitute an offence, under Section 304A of the IPC, the same should be gross negligence and an element of mens rea must be shown to exist. The Court had further explained that the degree of negligence which is punishable under Section 304A of the IPC should be of a high degree. The Court had observed as under:— “48. We sum up our conclusions as under: …(5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution. (6) The word ‘gross’ has not been used in Section 304A of IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be ‘gross’. The expression ‘rash or negligent act’ as occurring in Section 304A of the IPC has to be read as qualified by the word ‘grossly’…” 21. Thus, while evaluating whether a proceeding relating to an alleged offence, under Section 304A of the IPC, be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the victim, it would also be necessary to consider whether it is probable that the facts presented would constitute gross negligence and an element of mens rea, which is likely to secure a conviction.” 17. The Court specifically rejected the submission that, an earlier 6 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10007 [hereinafter, “Babu Khan”]. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15 CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 8 of 9 judgment in Bhajan Lal Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)7 operates as a bar to the adoption of such a course8. 18. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in Sunil Malhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi)9, undertook a comprehensive examination of precedents on the said issue and concluded that proceedings arising out of an offence under Section 304A IPC are amenable to quashing, including in cases where a settlement has been entered into with the legal heirs of the deceased. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that criminal liability for negligence under Section 304A IPC is attracted only where the negligence is of a gross nature, to be determined on an assessment of the facts and circumstances of each case. 19. Applying the principles enunciated above, the material placed on record prima facie indicates that the incident was accidental in nature and arose in the course of work being undertaken at the site, and cannot be attributed to any intentional or grossly negligent act on the part of the petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court which would, prima facie, disclose such a degree of rashness or negligence as would satisfy the threshold of “gross negligence” so as to necessitate continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 304A IPC, despite settlement. Furthermore, the FIR/chargesheet does not indicate any specific overt act, deliberate omission, or conscious negligence to the petitioner. The prosecution case rests essentially on an inference of negligence arising out of the occurrence itself. The facts thus do not make out an act of gross negligence attributable to the petitioner. 7 2019 SCC OnLine Del 4234. 8 Babu Khan, paragraph 8. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15 CRL.M.C. 6881/2026 Page 9 of 9 20. The Court must also consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote. In the present case, there is no material demonstrating any specific negligence attributable to the petitioner. Further, the dispute was amicably settled within a week of registration of the FIR, and the petitioner has increased the amount substantially and readily, even after the settlement. The legal heir, i.e. the mother of the deceased has categorically stated that she does not allege any fault on the part of the petitioner or seek his prosecution. In these circumstances, the likelihood of the prosecution successfully establishing criminal negligence against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt appears remote. Learned counsel for the parties have also confirmed before the Court that the settlement was arrived at voluntarily. Continuation of the proceedings in such circumstances would not advance the cause of justice. 21. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, FIR No. 172/2024 dated 07.11.2024, registered at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi, under Sections 290/125(a) of the BNS, alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 22. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 23. The petition along with pending applications is disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/tg/SD/ 9 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7365. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:15