CRL.M.C./6842/2026 of VIJAY VERMA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 16 September 2026

O R D E R

% 16.09.2026

1. The petitioner has filed 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”)], seeking quashing of FIR No. 118/2021, dated 09.03.2021, registered at Police Station Bhajan Pura, Delhi, under Sections 354D/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Sumit Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioner is present in Court and is identified by his learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO.

4. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are known to each other, and reside in the same locality. The impugned FIR is registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2, who alleged that the petitioner was following her around for some time, and used abusive language against her. Consequently, she filed a complaint against him, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered.

5. A chargesheet stands filed in these proceedings. Subseqeuntly, by order dated 30.04.2025, the petitioner was charged under section 354D of IPC, however was discharged under Section 509 of IPC.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties resolved their disputes amicably vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2026. The settlement does not contemplate any monetary consideration.

7. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure of any kind. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, states that the allegations under Section 354D IPC arose out of a misunderstanding in context to their neighbourhood dispute.

8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

9. The Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate circumstances, High Courts, while exercising their powers under Section 528 of the

BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings, where a compromise has been reached between the accused and the complainant, particularly when no overriding public interest is adversely affected.

10. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

prescribed.”2 Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under: “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. 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. 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

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.”4

11. The present case emanates from a dispute between parties who are known to each other, and are residing in the same locality. The parties continue to reside in the same locality and have amicably resolved their differences, agreeing to bury the hatchet. In the present case, the allegations of stalking stem from a misunderstanding between acquaintances, and do not engage any wider public interest or grave criminality. In accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is relevant to note that respondent No. 2 has affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings is unlikely to result in a conviction and would serve no practical purpose, while only adding to the burden on the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.

12. Having regard to the circumstances giving rise to the impugned FIR, I am of the view that imposition of costs and the direction of community service upon the petitioner is necessitated.

13. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C

No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within two weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed within one week thereafter.

14. The petitioner is also directed to report to the Medical Superintendent, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, on 25.09.2026 at 11:00 AM., who shall assign him suitable duties and tasks for six sessions of two hours each, to be completed within the next three months. The nature, and timing of such duties shall be determined by the Medical Superintendent, and with regard to the petitioner’s work-related commitments. The petitioner shall file compliance affidavit, alongwith a certificate issued by the said hospital, within one week thereafter.

15. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 118/2021, dated 09.03.2021, registered at Police Station Bhajan Pura, Delhi, alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.

17. The petition, along with pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 Tg/SM/ 4 Emphasis supplied.