$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7450/2025 ANKIT MAHAJAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State.

ASI Ravi Kumar.

Complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

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