$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8869/2025, CRL.M.A. 37005/2025 & CRL.M.A.

37006/2025 DEEPANSHU SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Aarti Bansiwal, Advocate along with the Petitioner in person.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ......Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State along with Ms. Pragati Gupta, Advocate.

SI Aarti Jha, PS Roop Nagar.

Mr. Tripurari Jha and Mr. Balaji Pthak, Advocates for Respondent No.

2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 11.12.2025

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. 336/2024, registered at P.S. Roop Nagar under Sections 281/125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,, “BNS” and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The prosecution case is that on 16^th December, 2024, Respondent No. 2 was standing at the red light at Shakti Nagar Chowk while driving his Mahindra Scorpio-N car. On the traffic signal turning green, the Petitioner, who was riding a scooty, allegedly started his vehicle, which collided with Respondent No. 2’s car. Although Respondent No. 2 did not sustain any injuries, damage was caused to his car. On the basis of the statement of Sub- Inspector Vinod Kumar to the aforesaid effect, the present FIR came to be registered. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 281 and 125(b) of the BNS.

3. The parties, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, have resolved the dispute. Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the present FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18^th November, 2025, has been executed between the parties, a copy whereof is placed on record and has been perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give his no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. In furtherance of the settlement, the Petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of INR 30,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as final settlement amount.

4. Respondent No. 2, who appears in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He confirms that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. He further confirms receipt of the full and final settlement amount from the Petitioner, as per the terms of the MoU executed between them. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 281 of BNS is non-compoundable, Sections 125(a) and 125(b) of BNS are compoundable in certain cases, with the permission of the Court.

6. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held as follows:

“11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived at betwe