$~98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 970/2026 AVTAR SINGH SETHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate, for P versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Ghansyam, PS Pul Prahladpur.

Mr. Jayant Tewatia, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in Person (VC)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 04.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 3836/2026 (for exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 970/2026

1. The petitioner has filed the present 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. 195/2014 dated 23.05.2014, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Jayant Tewatia, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The petitioner is present and is identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present on video conference, and is identified by his learned counsel and the IO.

5. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are friends, and the dispute arises from a misunderstanding, which led to a minor altercation.

6. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, against two accused persons.

7. The impugned FIR arises out of an incident dated 02.11.2011 at a shooting range, where, during the North Zone Shooting Competition, respondent No. 2 was allegedly stopped from entering his lane by the petitioner and one Baljit Singh Sethi, resulting in a scuffle between the parties, during which respondent No. 2 sustained injuries.

8. Subsequently, a charge sheet has also been filed.

9. During the pendency of the proceedings, co-accused [Mr. Baljit Singh Sethi] passed away on 18.09.2024, and the proceedings against him stand abated. The death certificate has been placed on record. The proceedings are therefore continuing against only the petitioner herein.

10. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 have since settled their disputes, and entered into a Compromise Deed dated 15.11.2025. The settlement does not involve any monetary consideration, and contemplates settlement of three criminal proceedings between the parties. I am informed that the other two criminal proceedings concern compoundable offences.

11. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

12. Even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the FIR on the ground of settlement. 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 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