W.P.(CRL) 1944/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010284092026 + W.P.(CRL) 1944/2026 KAPIL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Arpit Verma and Mr. Anuj Arya, Advocates with Petitioners (in- Persons). versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) for State. ASI Vijay Kr., P.S. Swaroop Nagar. Respondent No. 2 (in-Person). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 106 /2026 dated 12th March, 2026, registered under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/109(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233 at P.S. Swaroop Nagar and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11th March, 2026, at about 8:30 p.m., Petitioner No. 1/Kapil allegedly hit Respondent No. 2/Naresh’s scooty from behind and thereafter assaulted him with a helmet. Later, at about 9:30 p.m., when Respondent No. 2 went to Kapil’s residence to complain to his parents about the incident, an altercation ensued, during which Petitioner No. 2/Vishal allegedly slapped him, and Petitioner No. 3/Santosh allegedly 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 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 13:14:31 W.P.(CRL) 1944/2026 Page 2 of 5 snatched his mobile phone. Kapil thereafter allegedly came out carrying an axe, and all three Petitioners allegedly assaulted Respondent No. 2 with kicks and punches, while Kapil allegedly struck him with the axe, causing injuries to his left shoulder, left arm and above his right hip. During the altercation, Respondent No. 2, Kapil and Vishal allegedly fell into an empty plot, sustaining further injuries. On the basis of Respondent No. 2’s statement and MLR, the FIR was registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS. 3. The parties state that, with the intervention of well-wishers and elder members of their families, they have amicably resolved their disputes. Pursuant thereto, a Memorandum of Settlement-cum-Understanding dated 15th May, 2026 was executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. The settlement records that the parties, who reside in the same locality and have longstanding social ties, have decided to put an end to their disputes and live peacefully. 4. A copy of the Memorandum of Settlement-cum-Understanding has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per the terms thereof, Respondent No. 2, who is the victim as well as the aggrieved person, has stated that he does not wish to pursue FIR No. 106/2026. He has further undertaken to cooperate with the Petitioners in obtaining appropriate orders from this Court and to appear before the Court, as and when required. 5. Respondent No. 2/Complainant, who appears in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR. He confirms that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily and without any pressure 3 “BNS” 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 13:14:31 W.P.(CRL) 1944/2026 Page 3 of 5 or coercion and that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The Petitioners have also joined the proceedings and are duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In view 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. The offence under Section 115(2) BNS is compoundable by the person to whom the hurt is caused, subject to the conditions prescribed by law. Likewise, the offence under Section 126(2) BNS is compoundable by the person confined. Section 3(5) BNS embodies the principle of common intention and does not constitute a standalone offence. On the other hand, the offence under Section 109(1) BNS is non-compoundable. 7. It is well settled that the power of the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC] to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 359 BNSS. 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.4, 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 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 13:14:31 W.P.(CRL) 1944/2026 Page 4 of 5 and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 8. Although the offence under Section 109(1) BNS cannot be treated as strictly in personam, and requires the Court to exercise its jurisdiction with due caution, the Court must also take into account the particular circumstances of the case and the practical possibility of the prosecution being carried to its logical conclusion. 9. In the present case, the medical record assumes significance. As per the medical report, the injuries sustained by Respondent No. 2 were classified as simple in nature. Respondent No. 2 was provided treatment in the OPD and was thereafter discharged. Further, the Petitioners have volunteered to reimburse the expenses incurred by Respondent No. 2 on account of the incident. During the present hearing, the Petitioners have transferred an amount of INR 30,000/- to Respondent No. 2 towards such expenses. 10. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 has categorically expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed before the Court that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. 11. It is also relevant that the settlement has been arrived at an early stage, with the intervention of well-wishers and elder members of the families. The parties have undertaken to abide by the terms of the settlement and to put an end to the disputes between them. The settlement is in writing and Respondent No. 2 has also executed an affidavit in support of the present petition. 12. The Court is conscious that the allegation under Section 109(1) BNS 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 30/09/2026 at 13:14:31 W.P.(CRL) 1944/2026 Page 5 of 5 is non-compoundable. The mere consent of the complainant, by itself, cannot furnish a ground for quashing proceedings in respect of such an offence. However, the circumstances of the present case warrant consideration. 13. In these circumstances, the possibility of the prosecution culminating in a conviction, particularly when Respondent No. 2, who is the injured/complainant, is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, appears remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the peculiar facts of the present case, would serve little useful purpose and would not advance the interests of justice. 14. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed FIR No. 106 /2026 dated 12th March, 2026, registered under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/109(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20235 at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. 15. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioners. Accordingly, all the Petitioners are directed to deposit INR 2,500/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 17. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/as 5 “BNS” 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 13:14:31