CRL.M.C. 2725/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2725/2026 JATINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradeep Tokas, Mr. Karan Bhatia, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 10.04.2026 CRL.M.A. 11082/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 2725/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 420/2021, dated 30.07.2021, lodged at Police Station Vasant Kunj, South Delhi, under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel, and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 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 15/04/2026 at 11:38:01 CRL.M.C. 2725/2026 Page 2 of 4 (injured/complainant) is present by video conference and has also been identified by his learned counsel and the IO. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, which arises out of a road traffic accident dated 28.07.2021 near Vasant Kunj, wherein respondent No. 2 sustained injuries. 5. Pursuant to the investigation, a chargesheet was filed. Section 338 of IPC was added. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 12.03.2026, under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 7. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without force, fraud or coercion, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 8. The injuries of respondent No. 2 have been classified in the MLC as “grievous”. Respondent No. 2, who is present by video conference, states that although the nature of the injury was grievous, it was due to a fracture, but there are no lasting consequences, and he has since recovered. He further states that it does not appear to be a deliberate act. 9. Respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection to quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings. Respondent No. 2 states that he is satisfied with the settlement. 10. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 11. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of 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 15/04/2026 at 11:38:01 CRL.M.C. 2725/2026 Page 3 of 4 [corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS], 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. 12. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court held as follows: “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.” [Emphasis supplied.] 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 15/04/2026 at 11:38:01 CRL.M.C. 2725/2026 Page 4 of 4 13. The present case arises out of a road traffic accident. There is no allegation of any deliberate or intentional act. While the injuries suffered by respondent No. 2 were grievous, it is due to him suffering a fracture, which he has already recovered from, and there is also no lasting consequence of the injury. The parties have, thereafter, amicably resolved all their inter se disputes, and respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed before this Court that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily. In view of the nature of the allegations, the subsequent settlement between the parties, the likelihood of conviction is remote. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would, therefore, be an exercise in futility, serving no useful purpose and resulting only in an unnecessary consumption of judicial time and public resources. 14. The settlement contemplates a payment of Rs. 70,000/- to respondent No. 2, who states that the entire amount has already been received by him. There is therefore no impediment in granting the relief sought. 15. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 420/2021 dated 30.07.2021, lodged at Police Station Vasant Kunj, South Delhi, under Sections 279/337 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 16. The petition stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 10, 2026/‘Bhupi’/AD/ 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 15/04/2026 at 11:38:01