$~144

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 7352/2025

KISHANAPAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan,

Advocate.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP.

Mr. Prem Sagar, Advocate for R-2

& 3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

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) seeking quashing of FIR No. 76/2025 dated 10.08.2025, registered under Sections 289/106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], at Police

Station Kartavya Path, on the ground of settlement.

2. The impugned FIR has been registered upon a police complaint regarding the death of husband of respondent No.2 due to electrocution

while doing fire fighting repair work.

3. It is stated that the petitioner has entered into a settlement with the family of the deceased under a Memorandum of Understanding dated

06.10.2025. He, therefore, seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. The wife of the deceased is also present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel and IO as well.

6. The FIR concerns an allegation that the death was by negligence. Although the offence under Section 106(1) of BNS (corresponding to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) is non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between parties, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

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