W.P.(CRL) 1282/2025 $~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010227392025 + W.P.(CRL) 1282/2025 AJIT SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhiyant Singh, Ms. Amisha, Mr. Mayank Tyagi and Mr. Ranjan Choudhary, Advocates along with petitioners-in-person. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates for State. Mr. Harbir Singh, ASI and Mr. Bhoop Singh, SI, P.S. Bindapur. Mr. Abhishek Batra and Ms. Aansi Pathak, Advocates for R-2 along with R-2-in-person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.0106/2025 under Sections 115(2)/333/324(4)/109(1)/3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, registered on 10th February, 2025 at Police Station Bindapur, on the basis of settlement. 2. Issue Notice. 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 05/10/2026 at 12:06:42 W.P.(CRL) 1282/2025 3. Notice is accepted by the ASC appearing on behalf of the State and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2. 4. The petitioners and the respondent no.2 reside in the same neighborhood. The dispute arose from successive altercations between the parties, culminating in an alleged assault and stone-pelting by the petitioners at the respondent no.2/complainant’s house. During the incident, a firearm was allegedly used, with the bullet grazing the complainant’s shoulder, leading to registration of the FIR by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners. 5. In terms of the status report, it is stated that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed before the concerned Court. Further, it is stated that the nature of injury caused to the injured/respondent no.2 has been opined to be “simple” as per the MLC report. Along with the status report, the MLC report has been filed as Annexure-1. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 vide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 3rd April, 2025 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). In terms of the settlement, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been paid by the petitioners to the respondent no.2. 7. ASC, appearing on behalf of the State, opposes the settlement on the ground that it was a serious offence, including Sections 109 and 333 of BNS. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties. 9. It is well settled that, even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the High Court may exercise inherent powers, recognised by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS, to quash proceedings based on a compromise between the parties. However, the aforesaid power is 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 05/10/2026 at 12:06:42 W.P.(CRL) 1282/2025 discretionary and subject to certain principles which guide the Court in adjudicating an application of this nature. [Ref: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303]. 10. A reference may be made to the judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Supreme Court, applying Gian Singh (supra), laid down the guiding principles for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement, including the manner in which cases involving Section 307 IPC (Section 109 of BNS) are to be assessed having regard to the nature of injury, weapon used, possibility of conviction, nature of the dispute and timing of settlement. 29. 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. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. … 29.4. … 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 05/10/2026 at 12:06:42 W.P.(CRL) 1282/2025 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. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide 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 05/10/2026 at 12:06:42 W.P.(CRL) 1282/2025 case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. [Emphasis supplied.] 11. In Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 INSC 182, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, whereby the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 307 IPC was dismissed on the ground that the offence could not be compounded. It was held that the mere use of the expression “Section 307 IPC” or the invocation of Section 307 in the criminal proceedings cannot be determinative to compel the High Court to refuse to examine the settlement. The Court is required to assess the factual matrix, including the nature of the injury and weapon, and determine whether the allegations, on the material collected, constitute a case in which continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve the ends of justice. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case, the FIR invokes Sections 109 and 333 of BNS (Sections 307 and 452 of IPC respectively), as well as Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Applying the aforesaid principles, the nature of the injury assumes significance. The MLC of the respondent no.2 records the nature of injury as “simple”. 13. Vide order dated 23rd April 2025, separate statements of the petitioners and the respondents have been recorded before the Joint Registrar to the effect that they have amicably settled the dispute without any force, coercion, undue 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 05/10/2026 at 12:06:42 W.P.(CRL) 1282/2025 influence and pressure. The statement of the Investigating Officer (“I.O.”) has also been recorded. 14. Taking into account the simple nature of the injury and that the parties have voluntarily settled their disputes and that the settlement has been arrived at an early stage of the proceedings, when the chargesheet has only recently been filed and the trial is yet to commence, coupled with the unequivocal stand of the complainant and injured that they do not wish to pursue the matter, this Court is of the view that the present case falls within the category where the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised. 15. The respondent no.2 is present in Court and has been identified by her counsel as well as by the I.O. She informs the Court that she has settled the matter of her own free will and without any coercion. She further states that she has no objection to quashing of the FIR. 16. The petitioners are also present in Court and have been identified by their counsel. He affirms the statement of the respondent no.2 and undertake to abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. 17. Considering the above settlement between the parties, there is no use continuing with the proceedings of the present FIR, as it would be an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the aforementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. 18. Consequently, the FIR No.0106/2025, registered at Police Station Bindapur, and the proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- each by the petitioners no.1 to 3 to ‘Avlamban Fund Scheme 2024’, a scheme formulated to provide financial aid to the acid attack victims, within two (2) weeks from today. 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 05/10/2026 at 12:06:42 W.P.(CRL) 1282/2025 Account No. 43599660056 Branch: State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi. IFSC: SBIN0000726 MICR Code: 110002126. 19. The necessary compliance report shall be filed with the Registry within four (4) weeks from today. 20. The petition stands disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 Vivek/- 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 05/10/2026 at 12:06:42