$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23rd September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010454572026 + W.P.(CRL) 2971/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29661/2026 MAYANK & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vipin Bhatt, Adv. Mob: 8588872925 Email: vipinbhattt1989@gmail.com versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advs. Mob: 7840058325 Email: asc.rbandhopadhya@gmail.com Mr. Vijay, SI, PS Mukherjee Nagar, NWD CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral): 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”), read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 167/2025, dated 13th March, 2025, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Mukherjee Nagar, North Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified West District, Delhi, under Sections 110, 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and all its consequential proceedings, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Standing Counsel (“ASC”) appearing for the State, i.e., respondent no. 1. 3. As per the documents on record, FIR 167/2025 was registered at the instance of respondent no. 2 after a verbal altercation between the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 and 3. The altercation subsequently became more abusive, following which the petitioners assaulted respondent no. 2 and struck respondent no. 3 on the head, causing him injury. 4. A Chargesheet, was filed by the Investigating Officer (“IO”) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi, arising out of the criminal proceedings in connection with the said FIR, wherein, the petitioners have been charged under Sections 110, 79 and 3(5) of the BNS as stated in the FIR, as well as under Section 115(2) of the BNS. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 and 3 resolved their disputes amicably with the intervention of friends and relatives and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) dated 08th July, 2026, whereby, respondent nos. 2 and 3 agreed to file the requisite documents for quashing of the FIR. 6. The aforesaid MoU does not contemplate any monetary consideration. 7. Respondent no. 2, who is present before this Court through Video Conferencing (“VC”), submits that she has voluntarily entered into the MoU dated 08th July, 2026, and does not wish to pursue the proceedings with regards to FIR 167/2025 any further. 8. In respect of the said FIR, this Court notes that the offence under Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified Section 110 of the BNS is non-compoundable. 9. However, even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the FIR if the concerned parties have arrived at a compromise, and particularly when no overarching public interest is adversely affected by quashing the same. 10. In Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held as under: “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 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, Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified 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) 11. Further, in Narinder Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing criminal proceedings: “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, 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. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 Signature Not Verified 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) 12. This Court notes the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute vide the MoU dated 08th July, 2026, executed voluntarily and without any force, coercion, or undue influence. 13. This Court further notes that respondent no. 2 has affirmed the voluntary nature of the said MoU. 14. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, FIR No. 167/2025, dated 13th March, 2025, registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 15. The petition, along with the pending application, accordingly stands By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49 disposed of. 16. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the said MoU. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/SK By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 09:05:49