CRL.M.C./8357/2025 of NAMAN SINGH @ NAMAN SINGH KUMAR & ORS. Vs STATE THROUGH SHO NEW FRIENDS COLONY & ORS. on 2 September 2026

O R D E R

%

02.09.2026

1. The petitioners have 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. 133/2023, dated 09.04.2023, registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, District South-East, Delhi, under Sections 323/341/427/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the grounds of settlement.

2. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and respondent No. 3 is present on video conference. They have also been identified by their learned counsel and the IO.

3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. The allegations arising out of the FIR are that on 09.04.2023 at about 3:00 AM, respondent No. 2 and her husband, allegedly witnessed a car run over a stray dog. On questioning the occupants of the car, who are their neighbours, an argument ensued, during which the occupants, in an intoxicated state, allegedly abused and threatened them. Respondent No. 2’s husband was taken away by respondent No. 3, their security guard. Subsequently, several persons, stated to be intoxicated and armed with iron rods, arrived in other cars, damaged respondent No. 2’s car and threatened her. When respondent No. 3 tried to intervene, he was also allegedly assaulted by them.

5. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners under Sections 323/341/427/506/509/201/34 of IPC.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.11.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

8. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are present before this Court, also confirm that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The injuries sustained by respondent No. 3 are simple in nature, and respondent No. 3 further states that the same have resulted in no lasting consequences.

9. Even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

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.”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 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

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.

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 stems from a neighbourhood dispute between the parties. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably by way of a settlement, continue to reside in the same society, and wish to maintain peaceful relations henceforth. Although there is no monetary compensation in the settlement, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have categorically affirmed before this Court that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily. The injuries sustained by respondent No. 3 are stated to be simple in nature, and there are no lasting consequences. In view these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to culminate in a conviction and would amount to an empty formality, thereby unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and leading to the avoidable consumption of public resources.

12. In view of the above, the present case warrants the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as such an order would advance the ends of justice by enabling the parties to live in peace and harmony rather than perpetuating animosity. It is also evident that quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would not adversely affect any overriding public interest.

13. The petition is, therefore, allowed, and FIR No. 133/2023, dated 09.04.2023, registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, District South-East, Delhi, under Sections 323/341/427/506/509 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

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

15. The petition, alongwith any pending applications, is accordingly, disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 SS/MK/ 4 Emphasis supplied.