$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3867/2025 & CRL.M.A. 16904/2025 JAGDISH MOTIWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vipul Kr. Sharma, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with SI Pawan, PS-Vasant Kunj.

Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Tiku, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026

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. 365/2023 dated 01.07.2023, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj South, District South West, Delhi, under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. The petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by Mr. Vipul Kr. Sharma, learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 (the injured) is also present in person and has been identified by his learned counsel, Mr. Nitesh Kumar, and the IO.

3. The petitioner, who was about 76 years of age at the time of the incident, was the owner and driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.

DL-3C-CY-2947. On 30.06.2023 at about 11:00 A.M., while the petitioner was driving the said vehicle on Main Mahipalpur Road near Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, the vehicle hit a roadside bench on which respondent No. 2 was sitting, resulting in the respondent sustaining injuries.

4. Respondent No. 2 was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where Medico-Legal Case [“MLC”] No. 500382296/23 was prepared on 30.06.2023. The MLC records that the nature of the injuries as “Grievous”. On the basis of the MLC, FIR No. 365/2023 was registered on 01.07.2023 at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South). After investigation, a chargesheet dated 04.06.2024 was filed, and the case is presently pending as Criminal Case No. 914/2024 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

5. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the police also filed a Detailed Accident Report on 31.07.2023 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts [“MACT”]. The MACT proceedings have since been disposed of, and respondent No. 2 has received compensation of approximately Rs. 7,50,000/- in respect of the injuries suffered in the accident.

6. The parties have thereafter amicably resolved their disputes by entering into a settlement. A Compromise Deed / Memorandum of Understanding has been executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 21.04.2025.

7. As per the settlement, and in addition to the compensation already received in the MACT proceedings, the petitioner agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 40,000/- to respondent No. 2. Both parties, who are present in Court, categorically state that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any force, fraud, or coercion, and respondent No. 2 has no objection to quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.

8. Demand draft of Rs.40,000/- has been handed over in Court to the respondent No. 2.

9. Although the offence under Section 279 of 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.

10. 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 compoundab