$~122

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 279/2026

SANDEEP RAJPUT .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma,

Advocate.

versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma with

Ms. Geeta, Advocates for R2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

CRL.M.A. 1054/2026 (for exemption

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 279/2026

1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Manoj Kumar

Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. 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. 227/2022 dated 22.04.2022, lodged at P.S. Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi, under Sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.

3. The FIR was originally registered under Sections 279/337 of the IPC, at the instance of respondent No. 2. The facts, as narrated in the FIR, are that on 21.04.2022, respondent No. 2 was crossing the road on foot when he was struck by a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-5SCM- 9581, as a result of which he sustained injuries. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under 279/337/338 of the IPC, and the petitioner was named as the accused.

4. The parties have since entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 10.09.2025, under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

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

6. The petitioner is present and is identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by learned counsel and the IO.

7. The Settlement Agreement dated 10.09.2025 contemplates payment of Rs.15,000/- in two installments of Rs.7,500/- each, by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 states that Rs.7,500/- was received earlier, and the remaining Rs.7,500/- has been paid today. The settlement has, therefore, been implemented. Respondent No. 2 also states that he had sustained a fracture in his arm, and has received compensation of approximately Rs.6,50,000/- in Motor Accident Claims proceedings.

8. Although the offence under Section 279 of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section

482 of CrPC [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.

9. 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 offen