1. Quashing of FIR for road accident offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC on ground of amicable settlement between parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Ankit Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 7450/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjeev Sharma
For the Respondents: Priyanka Dalal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjeev Sharma
For the Respondents: Priyanka Dalal
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from road accidents if the parties have settled and the proceedings serve no useful purpose, provided the offence is not serious or heinous.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Compromise between parties - Power of High Court to quash non-compoundable offences under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) where the dispute is amicably settled and does not impinge upon overriding public interest, especially in cases with a predominantly civil flavour or road accidents where the likelihood of conviction is remote. (Para 8, 10)
(B) Inherent Jurisdiction - Guidelines for Settlement - The High Court may exercise its inherent power to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, provided the offence is not heinous, serious, or committed by a public servant in their official capacity. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC could be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the accused and the injured party.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and proceedings based on settlement; injured respondent had no objection. (Para 1 , 7 )
3. Offence under Section 279 is non-compoundable, but High Court can quash proceedings where settlement exists and no overriding public interest is harmed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. High Court may quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings upon settlement if conviction is unlikely and no overriding public interest is affected. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all proceedings quashed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000 by petitioner. (Para 11 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Section 528 BNSS upon settlement between parties?
Yes, the High Court can quash such proceedings if the settlement is genuine, conviction is unlikely, and no overriding public interest is affected. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. What is the guiding principle for quashing criminal proceedings based on settlement in non-compoundable offences?
The guiding factors are to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court, ensuring quashing does not impinge upon public interest. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. Can proceedings arising from a road accident resulting in grievous injury be quashed upon settlement and compensation?
Yes, when the injured party has been compensated and voluntarily settles, continuation of proceedings may be futile, and quashing is permissible. (Para 10 )
O R D E R
% 27.01.2026
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. 139/2024 dated 05.02.2024, registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, Delhi, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.
2. The petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 (the injured) is also present in person and has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
3. On 05.02.2024, at about 12:40 A.M., the petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. DL-8-CAV-7688 from the Aram Bagh roundabout towards DBG Road. During the course of the said journey, the vehicle struck respondent No. 2 from behind, as a consequence of which he fell on the road and sustained injuries. The petitioner thereafter left the spot with the vehicle. Respondent No. 2 was subsequently removed to Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital [“LHMC”] by the PCR, where his Medico-Legal Case [“MLC”] was prepared on the same date.
4. On the basis of the said MLC, FIR No. 139/2024 was registered on 05.02.2024 at Police Station Pahar Ganj. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case is presently pending before the learned ACJM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi.
5. The matter was thereafter referred to mediation in Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 13.05.2025 by the learned ACJM, pursuant to which the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. The settlement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 11.07.2025.
6. Upon inquiry, it has been informed that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“MACT”] have since been concluded, and respondent No. 2 has received compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained in the accident.
7. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and in addition to the compensation already received by respondent No. 2 in the MACT proceedings, the petitioner has paid a further sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- to respondent No. 2, which is duly acknowledged. Both parties are present before the Court and have unequivocally stated that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, of their own free will, and without any force, fraud, or coercion. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that, having received the aforesaid amount, he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
8. Although the offence under Section 279 of the IPC is non- compoundable, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), is empowered to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and where the quashing of such proceedings does not impinge upon any overriding public interest.
9. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303. has held as follows:
“58.Where the HighCourt quashes a criminal proceedinghavingregard 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 enda
