$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 9229/2025 & CRL.M.A. 38519/2025, CRL.M.A.

38520/2025 KRISHAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nakul Nirwan & Ms. Rishabha Singh, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Savita, PS Prasad Nagar.

Mr. Roshan Chand, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026

1. The. present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure [“CrPC”]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 294/2023 dated 03.06.2023, registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar, District Central, Delhi, under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State. Mr. Roshan Chand, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by Mr. Nakul Nirwan, learned counsel, and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 (injured/complainant) is also present in Court and has been identified by Mr. Chand and the IO.

4. The FIR arises out of a road traffic accident dated 02.06.2023 at about 5:30 PM near BLK-Max Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi, wherein the vehicle bearing DL-2CBD-3416 driven by the petitioner, allegedly struck respondent No. 2 while taking a U-turn. Immediately after the incident, the petitioner took the injured to the hospital.

5. Investigation was conducted, and a chargesheet has been filed in August 2023 before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, where the matter is presently pending.

6. The injuries of the victim (respondent No. 2) have been classified in the Medico-Legal Report as “grievous”. He has suffered 35%

permanent physical disability.

7. Compensation proceedings arising out of the same accident, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“MACT”], have already been concluded, and respondent No. 2 has received compensation of approximately Rs. 12,70,000/-.

8. The parties have now entered into a voluntary settlement dated 14.11.2025. In addition to the MACT compensation, the petitioner (who was a paid driver, and not the owner of the vehicle) has agreed to pay respondent No. 2 a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement, out of which Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid. The balance Rs. 50,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court today.

9. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection to quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings.

Respondent No. 2 states that he is satisfied with the settlement.

10. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without force, fraud or coercion, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

11. Although the offence under Section 279 of the IPC is non- compoundable, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), is empowered to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and where the quashing of such proceedings does not impinge upon any overriding public interest.

12. 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