$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010375062026 + CRL.M.C. 5940/2026 DAUD & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Arif Khan with Mr. Sandesh K. Jha, Mr. Amritanshu Rai and Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocates. Petitioners in person. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. (M): 9899723716 Email: shoaibhaideradvocate@gmail.com SI Ram Kishan, PS Mehrauli. (M): 9214528023 Email: ram.krishan2823@gmail.com Respondent no. 2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral): 1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), the petitioners seek quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 0637/2017 dated 23rd August, 2017, registered under Sections 452/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) at Police Station (“PS”) Mehrauli, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Subsequently, in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the Investigating Officer (“IO”) filed a Chargesheet before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, New Delhi, on 27th April, 2023. 3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State and respondent no. 2, who is present in person before this Court. 4. Respondent no. 2 has handed over to this Court his Aadhar Card, to prove his identity, which is also confirmed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 5. Further, the Investigating Officer (“IO”) has duly identified both the petitioners and respondent no. 2, who are present in Court. 6. As per the Chargesheet filed by the IO on 27th April, 2023, and FIR No. 0637/2017 dated 23rd August, 2017, the following is culled out: 6.1. On 22nd August, 2017, respondent no. 2, i.e., Sh. Shamin Ahmed, was sitting with his associates in the office of one Shri Baldev Singh, at Chhatarpur, Delhi. They had locked the office door from inside and were having a meeting. 6.2. It is alleged that at around 5:00 – 5:30 PM, petitioner no. 1, i.e., Sh. Daud, came along with petitioner no. 2, i.e., Sh. Javed, and started abusing the people present inside the office, kicked the office door and tried to force their way inside. 6.3. Thereafter, the petitioners broke the latch and entered the office. They assaulted respondent no. 2 and his associates with kicks and punches and forcibly took away the signed property documents pertaining to properties situated at F-6, Ram Colony, and E-5, Suman Colony, Chhatarpur, New Delhi. 6.4. It is also alleged that there was a property related dispute between the parties herein. Since both the petitioners were unable to stop respondent no. 2 and his associates from dealing in property matters, they attacked respondent no. 2 and his associates with sharp weapons and with an intention to kill them. Further, taking advantage of the chaos, both the petitioners fled away from the place of the incident. 6.5. During the investigation it was, inter alia, revealed that petitioner no. 1 also lodged FIR No. 636/2017 under Section 324 of the IPC, against the respondent no. 2 herein. 7. Today, this Court is informed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences through mutual settlement and with the intervention of respectable persons and well-wishers. 8. Thus, the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 0637/2017 is founded upon a General Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding dated 08th May, 2026, executed between the parties at New Delhi, wherein petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent no. 2, towards full and final settlement of all their disputes. They have further agreed to quash the criminal proceedings arising in connection with the said FIR. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners and respondent no. 2 are known to each other due to the business relation between them and that the dispute between the parties arose out of a misunderstanding relating to business and construction-related issues, which is predominantly private and personal in nature. Page 4 of 8 10. Respondent no. 2 has categorically conveyed to this Court that he does not wish to pursue the matter any further, and that the same has been settled out of his own free will and without any coercion, threat, undue influence, or inducement. He has further confirmed that the settlement amount of Rs. 10,000/- already stands paid by the petitioners to him. 11. In view of the above, this Court notes that the Supreme Court has clearly held that in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, 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. However, this inherent power must be exercised with circumspection when allegations of a serious or heinous nature have been made out. In this regard, attention may be afforded to the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, whereby, the scope and limitations of the inherent powers of the High Court have been enumerated. The relevant extracts are reproduced as below: “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, 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 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Page 6 of 8 Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. Even in the case of Narinder Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has formulated guiding principles for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, in cases involving a compromise/settlement. It has been emphasised that the power to quash an FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 320 of the CrPC, and must be exercised sparingly, keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the offence. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx 13. 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: 14. 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. 15. 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) 16. This Court is of the view that in light of the voluntary and amicable General Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties on 08th May, 2026, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. In fact, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment and prejudice to the petitioners. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, FIR No. 0637/2017 dated 23rd August, 2017, registered under Sections 452/506/34 of the IPC, at PS Mehrauli, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 18. The present petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/c