The High Court can use its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from a road accident if a genuine settlement is reached, conviction is unlikely, and no public interest is harmed.

O R D E R

1. 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”)) seeks quashing of FIR No. 380/2025 dated 12th October, 2025, registered at P.S. Dwarka South, Delhi, under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (“BNS”) (corresponding to Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (“IPC”)), and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The prosecution case arises from information received regarding a road accident that occurred in the intervening night of 11th-12th October, 2025, near the red light between Sector-6 and Sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi. The accident involved a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-4S-DS-5301, which was being driven by Respondent No. 2, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, with Respondent No. 3, Saksham Thakur, riding pillion. It is alleged that the motorcycle was struck by a car bearing registration No. DL-10-CW-3511, which was coming from the wrong side and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the collision, both Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sustained injuries. Respondent No. 2 allegedly suffered grievous injuries, while Respondent No. 3 sustained minor ones. Upon tracing Respondent No.2, the police recorded his statement and registered the FIR.

3. The parties have settled their disputes and differences, and the Petitioner has executed separate settlement agreements, one with Respondent No. 2 on 25th October, 2025, and the other with Respondent No.3 on 10th November, 2025. Copies of these settlements are on record and perused by the Court. As per their terms, Respondents No. 2 and 3 have voluntarily given their no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. In furtherance of the settlement, the Petitioner agreed to pay INR 3,75,000/- to Respondent No. 2 and INR 3,000/- to Respondent No. 3.

4. Respondent No. 2, who is present in person, and Respondent No. 3, who has joined the proceedings through the Video Conferencing mechanism, duly identified by the Investigating Officer, have confirmed the settlements and expressed their unequivocal consent to the quashing of the FIR. They confirm that the settlements have been arrived at voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion. They further confirm that in terms of the agreements, they have received the entire settlement amount. The Petitioner has also joined the proceedings in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution, the parties jointly seek quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

5. It is noted that Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed, wherein, in addition to the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the offences under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (“MV Act”) have also been invoked against the Petitioner. Nonetheless, the said offences are compoundable in nature, and the Petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay the requisite compounding fee in accordance with law.

6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Notably, the offence under Section 281 BNS is non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 125(a) BNS is compoundable, albeit with the permission of the Court, and by the person to whom hurt is caused.

7. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inh