CRL.M.C. 7025/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010448712026 + CRL.M.C. 7025/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29326/2026 VISHAL KUNWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Panchal, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Ms. Akansha Rathore, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate for State. SI V. Giri, P.S. GTB Enclave and SI Jagroshni, P.S. Seelampur. Mr. Saranjeet, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 (through VC). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 21.09.2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 0525/2023 dated 10th October, 2023, registered under Sections 354/354(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “IPC” 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 25/09/2026 at 11:17:39 CRL.M.C. 7025/2026 Page 2 of 5 2. Briefly stated, the impugned FIR arises from an incident dated 10th October, 2023, when Respondent No. 2/Complainant had visited G.T.B. Hospital for medical treatment. It is alleged that while she was undergoing a medical test, the Petitioner, who was present in the concerned room, touched her inappropriately. The incident was reported to the police and, on the complaint of Respondent No. 2, the impugned FIR came to be registered. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet under Sections 354/354A of IPC has also been filed before the concerned Court. 3. The parties state that, with the intervention of their family members and respectable members of society, they have amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 22nd August, 2026, a copy whereof has been placed on record. The settlement records that it has been arrived at voluntarily, without any force, coercion or undue influence. No monetary consideration forms part of the settlement. 4. Respondent No. 2 is present in person and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. She confirms that she has voluntarily settled the matter with the Petitioner, without any force, coercion or undue influence, and states that she does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR and has no objection to its quashing. An affidavit to this effect has also been placed on record by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner is also present in Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. 5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Notably, the offences under Sections 354 and 354A of IPC are non-compoundable. At the same time, it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under 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 25/09/2026 at 11:17:39 CRL.M.C. 7025/2026 Page 3 of 5 Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,4 the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 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 4 (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 25/09/2026 at 11:17:39 CRL.M.C. 7025/2026 Page 4 of 5 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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 6. There can be no dispute that offences under Sections 354 and 354A of IPC cannot be treated as strictly in personam, as they also touch upon broader public concerns. At the same time, the Court must account for the practical realities of the prosecution. Where the settlement is bona fide and voluntary, and the complainant is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the possibility of securing a conviction becomes remote. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings may serve no useful purpose and amount to an exercise in futility. 7. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR and has confirmed that the settlement is voluntary and without any force, coercion or undue influence. She has also filed an affidavit to this effect. Having regard to the settlement and the stand of Respondent No. 2, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no worthwhile purpose. The Court therefore considers it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to secure the ends of justice. 8. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 0525/2023 registered under Sections 354/354A of IPC at P.S. G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. 9. However, since the State machinery was set in motion pursuant to the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:17:39 CRL.M.C. 7025/2026 Page 5 of 5 Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to deposit INR 5,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026 as 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 25/09/2026 at 11:17:39