$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3877/2025, CRL.M.A. 35042/2025 ASHWANI KAPOOR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Devyanani Sharma and Mr. Sahil Giri, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate for Mr.

Amol Sinha, ASC for the State.

SI Chetan, P.S.: Paschim Vihar West.

Ms. Devyaani Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026 By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No. 1382/2023 dated 29.12.2023 registered under sections 285/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Paschim Vihar West, Delhi.

2. Further to what was recorded in order dated 29.01.2026, Mr. Kshitiz Garg, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC for the State submits, that as per their calculation, and considering the age of the deceased and his monthly wages as an unskilled worker, as well as the parameters under the Employee’s Compensation Act 1923 (‘EC Act’), the compensation that the deceased would be entitled to receive under the EC Act would be Rs. 14,97,496/-.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner has already paid to respondent No.2 a sum of Rs. 11 lacs. Out of 11 lacs, Rs. 10.50 lacs has been given towards compensation and Rs. 50,000/- towards medical/funeral expenses; and is also willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3.97 lacs on the parameters of the EC Act.

4. The petition is premised on Settlement Deed dated 18.11.2025, whereby the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have resolved the matter amicably.

5. Respondent No.2 is present in-person in court. She is also represented by counsel. Counsel submits, that the amount offered is acceptable to her as full and final compensation, payable in the present proceedings.

6. The petition is also supported by affidavits of the petitioners and of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs.

7. The contesting parties are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

8. Mr. Kshitiz Garg, learned ASC confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

9. In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

10. In view of the above, subject to the petitioner paying to respondent No.2 the sum of Rs.3.97 lacs within 04 weeks; and placing proof of payment on record, case FIR No. 1382/2023 dated 29.12.2023 registered under sections 285/304-A of the IPC at P.S.: Paschim Vihar West, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

11. Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to revive the present petition, if payment of the balance sum, referred to above, is not made as directed.

12. Petition stands disposed-of.

13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 12, 2026 V.Rawat