$~129 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 551/2026 VINOD KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikram Gujral, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP with SI Mohan Rawar, PS: Safdarjung Enclave.

Mr. Aryan Kalia, Advocate for R2 with R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 22.01.2026

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 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 446/2017 dated 09.11.2017, lodged at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, under Sections 186/332/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.

2. The facts, as emerging from the impugned FIR, are that on 08.11.2017, respondent No. 2 – complainant, then working as a Branch Manager of Dena Bank, alongwith his staff, visited the place of one Shally Noori to enquire about an outstanding car loan availed from the Bank. It is alleged that upon reaching there, they were assaulted by the petitioner and his friend, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries to his head and other parts of his body.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed. Although the FIR mentions assault by two persons, the chargesheet has been filed only against one accused i.e., the petitioner herein.

4. The parties have since settled their disputes, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.12.2025. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

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

6. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure, and that the settlement has taken place without any monetary compensation.

The injuries are also stated to be simple in nature.

7. Although the offences under Sections 186, 332, and 353 of the IPC are 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.

8. 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 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. Howe