$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2563/2025 NITIN DABAS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kajal Singh, Advocate.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State.

R-2 in Person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 22.01.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] [corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [“CrPC”]], seeking quashing of FIR No. 2653/2015 dated 05.10.2015, registered at Police Station Mehrauli, South District, Delhi, under Sections 452/323/506/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”] and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. The petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by Ms. Kajal Singh, learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 appears through video conference and is identified by the IO and states that he does not require the assistance of counsel.

3. The subject FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging that on 04.10.2015, the petitioner forcibly entered his residence at Chhattarpur, demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, abused him, and brandished a firearm while threatening to kill respondent No.2. The dispute between the parties is stated to have arisen out of a monetary transaction. The investigation has since been completed and a chargesheet has been filed. The matter, bearing CR Case No. 4193/2019, is stated to be pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, South District, Saket Courts, with the next date of hearing fixed as 19.03.2026 for prosecution evidence.

4. The parties have resolved their disputes by way of a Deed of Compromise/Settlement on 10.03.2025, wherein respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the present FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom and has no objection to quashing the same.

5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have known each other for the last 20-22 years and have several common friends and well-wishers, with whose intervention the parties have amicably setted their disputes. It is further submitted that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

6. Although the offence under Section 452 IPC 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 the accused and the complainant, 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 depr