$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23rd September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010317192026 + CRL.M.C. 5077/2026 & CRL.M.A. 21289/2026 MIRTUNJAY @AJAY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhruv Mohan with Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Shikhar Khanna, Mr. Gautam Sharma and Ms. Drishti Sharma, Advocates with petitioner in person. (M): 9910961933 Email: dhruv_m@gmail.com versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. (M): 9899723716 Email: shoaibhaideradvocate@gmail.com Ms. Deepti Sharma with Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocates for respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 2 in person. (M): 9560892203 SI Dinesh Kumar, PS Kashmere Gate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral): 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking quashing of FIR No. 0255/2025 dated 08th April, 2025, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Kashmere Gate, District North, Delhi, under Sections 110/126(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). 2. Issue notice. 3. Notice accepted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2, i.e., the complainant. 4. The brief facts necessitating filing of the present petition are as follows: 4.1. On 08th April, 2025 the impugned FIR was registered upon the complaint of Sh. Pradeep Kumar @ Montu, i.e., respondent no. 2 herein. 4.2. Respondent no. 2 has stated that he is employed in Jai Ganesh Company, which recently was awarded the tender of Mandir Wali Parking, Mori Gate, Delhi, and has taken possession thereof. Further, earlier Sh. Ajay, i.e. the petitioner, was running the said parking, and due to the same being awarded to Jai Ganesh Company, the petitioner has an enmity with respondent no. 2. 4.3. He further alleges that on 07th April, 2025, at around 07:30 PM, when he was at Tooti Dewar Parking, Nicholson Road, Mori Gate, Delhi, three boys approached him, claiming to have been sent on behalf of the petitioner, and threatened respondent no. 2 as to teach him a lesson for taking the contract for the parking of ‘Ajay bhai’. Out of the said three boys, two boys were armed with sticks. Thereafter, the said three boys assaulted respondent no. 2 with kicks and sticks, forcing him to try running to save himself. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified However, two more boys came and stopped respondent no. 2 from running away and held him down, only for the group of boys to further beat him up. The said boys threatened respondent no. 2 of consequences of messing with ‘Ajay bhai’, and fled the scene. 4.4. Respondent no. 2, thereafter, himself went to Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital by a rickshaw, where he was examined vide MLC 456/2025 and treated for his injuries. 4.5. Respondent no. 2 alleges that the petitioner had sent his boys to beat him as the parking contract was awarded to his company instead of the petitioner. 4.6. During the pendency of the case, with the intervention of the relatives, well-wishers and respectable persons of the society, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and compromised the matter without any pressure, fear, coercion. 4.7. On 18th July, 2026, the parties entered into a settlement and reduced the same into writing vide Settlement Deed dated 10th August, 2026, which came into effect from 18th July, 2026. As per the said Settlement Deed, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and have decided to withdraw FIR 0255/2025, and undertook to cooperate in quashing of the same. 5. The parties are present in Court, and are identified by their respective learned counsels. 6. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 submits that the altercation which happened between respondent no. 2 and the petitioner was only a result of a misunderstanding. She submits that respondent no. 2 does Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified not wish to pursue the matter any further. 8. Respondent no. 2, who is present in Court, confirms the fact that the settlement has been entered by him with the petitioner without any fear, coercion or any kind of other force. 9. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the submissions made before this Court, he has instructions to not oppose the present petition. 10. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 11. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes that the matter has been finally settled between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. 12. This Court notes that Section 110 of the BNS, under which the petitioner has been charged, is non-compoundable offence under the BNSS. 13. It is no longer res-integra that this Court has the power to quash the criminal proceedings in cases of non-compoundable offences under the Cr.P.C (Now the BNSS), wherein, the parties have settled the matter between themselves. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings in the present case, since the offence, although non- compoundable, is in the nature of a personal body injury and the same has been resolved by way of settlement. 14. This Court also takes note of the statement jointly made by both the parties that Memorandum of Settlement Deed dated 10th August, 2026 has been entered into voluntarily on the advice of well-wishers and other members of the society. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified 15. It is to be noted that the present dispute is in the form of private nature between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and no loss or damage has been caused to any member of the public at large. 16. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of Cr.P.C), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx 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 Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified 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. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. Further, in the case of Narinder Singh and Others. Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for the High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between the parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under: “xxx xxx xxx 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, Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified 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. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 19. Accordingly, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified the criminal proceedings in view of the settlement between the parties. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. 20. It is to be noted that this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Versus State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi and Another., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1305, while quashing an FIR on the basis of settlement between the parties held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx 6. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 21. Having regard to the above discussion, the present petition is allowed. 22. Considering the overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the present case, FIR No. 0255/2025 dated 08th April, 2025, registered at PS Kashmiri Gate, District North, Delhi, under Sections 110/126(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the BNS, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 23. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement Deed dated 10th August, 2026. 24. The present petition, along with the pending application, accordingly By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 stands disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 c By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49