$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011096712025 + CRL.M.C. 1076/2026 DEEPAK BAJAJ AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.N Pandey, Mr. H.P Mishra, Ms. Ritu Shukla, Ms. Habiba, Advocates with Petitioners No. 1 & 2 in person. Petitioner No. 3 through VC versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate along with SI Monika, PS Jagatpuri. Mr. K. Singh, Advocate for R-2. Respondent No. 2 through VC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 24.09.2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] seeks quashing of FIR No. 177/2016 dated 14th June, 2016, registered at P.S. Jagat Puri (East), Delhi under Sections 295A/323/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The case of the prosecution, as set out in the Status Report, is that on 14th June, 2016, Respondent No. 2/Jagpreet Singh was sitting with his father at his shop in Krishna Nagar, Delhi, with his scooter parked beside the shop. It is alleged that Deepak Bajaj, his elder brother and their two sons came to 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 30/09/2026 at 11:40:29 the shop, beat Respondent No. 2, grabbed him by his hair and dragged him outside the shop. It is further alleged that they broke the articles lying in the shop and Respondent No. 2’s scooter, took his gold chain and tore his turban and clothes. During further investigation, the relevant CCTV footage was examined for each accused’s role. The said footage revealed that Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had beaten Respondent No. 2 and that Petitioner No. 1 had caught hold of and pulled his hair. Petitioner No. 3 was found present at the spot but was not found involved in the incident. Eventually, a supplementary chargesheet was filed under Sections 295-A/323/34 IPC against Petitioners No. 1 and 2, while Petitioner No. 3 was placed in Column No. 12. The MLC of Respondent No. 2 recorded his injuries as simple. 3. The parties state that, with the intervention of family, friends and other respectable members of society, they have amicably resolved their dispute, and Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the present FIR against the Petitioners. Pursuant to this settlement, a Settlement Agreement dated 10th December, 2025 was executed between the parties. 4. A copy of the Settlement Agreement has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, the parties have resolved their dispute and the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any force, coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation. Respondent No. 2 has also undertaken to cooperate in the proceedings for quashing of the FIR. 5. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2, who appears through the Video Conferencing mechanism and is identified by the IO, unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He confirms that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 have also joined the proceedings in person, while 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 30/09/2026 at 11:40:29 Petitioner No. 3 has joined through the Video Conferencing mechanism. All Petitioners have been duly identified by the IO. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 295A IPC is non-compoundable, the offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable in nature. 7. It is well settled that the power of the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)] to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 320 CrPC. This power may be exercised even in cases involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled the matter. However, the power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The guiding considerations are whether such exercise would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the Court. While exercising this power, the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.1, the Supreme Court has reiterated these principles and held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the proceedings where, having regard to the settlement, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 8. Although the offence under Section 295A IPC cannot be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and it touches upon public concerns rather than being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also account for 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 30/09/2026 at 11:40:29 practical realities of securing a conviction in the present case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where the complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction becomes exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest. 9. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 has categorically expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 10. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and in view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds the present case to be an appropriate one for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to secure the ends of justice. 11. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 177/2016 dated 14th June, 2016, registered at P.S. Jagat Puri (East), Delhi under Sections 295A/323/452/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 12. However, since the State machinery was set in motion on account of the subject FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioners. Accordingly, each of the Petitioners are directed to deposit INR 3,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of payment be deposited with the concerned IO within two weeks 1 (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 30/09/2026 at 11:40:29 thereafter. 13. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 14. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/ab 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 30/09/2026 at 11:40:29