1. Petition to quash FIR for non-compoundable offences of stalking and criminal intimidation based on settlement between parties. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Aditya Baliyan – Appellant
Versus
State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1218/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saroj Kumar Jha, Kaynat Ansari
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Yogesh Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saroj Kumar Jha, Kaynat Ansari
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Yogesh Sharma
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is predominantly personal, the parties have settled voluntarily, and continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose or public interest.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Non-compoundable offences - Inherent powers of High Court - Even where offences are non-compoundable, the High Court may quash proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) if the dispute is personal in nature, the parties have settled amicably, and there is no overarching public interest adversely affected, as continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility. (Para 11, 13)
(B) Guidelines for Quashing on Settlement - Distinguishing heinous crimes from personal disputes - Power to quash should not be exercised for serious offences like murder or rape, but should be applied to cases arising from personal, matrimonial, or commercial disputes where the possibility of conviction is remote. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the impugned FIR registered under Sections 354(D)/506 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties despite the offences being non-compoundable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought quashing due to settlement; complainant had no objection; State submitted to court's discretion. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 , 9 , 10 )
3. Dispute was personal, arose from misunderstanding, no overriding public interest; conviction remote and trial would be futile. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. High court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 528 BNSS if dispute is personal, settled, and no public interest affected. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all proceedings quashed conditional on payment of costs by petitioner. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement between parties?
Yes, under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), the High Court may quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is personal, settled voluntarily, and no public interest is adversely affected. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. What categories of offences are generally not quashed despite a settlement between parties?
Serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, offences of mental depravity, offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act, and offences by public servants are generally not quashed on basis of compromise. (Para 12 )
8. What is the guiding principle for a High Court when quashing proceedings on the ground of settlement?
The guiding principles are to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The court examines if conviction is remote and continuation would cause extreme injustice. (Para 12 )
O R D E R
% 13.02.2026 CRL.M.As. 4934-4935/2026 (for exemption Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1218/2026
1. The petitioner has filed 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”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 18/2019 dated 27.01.2019, registered at Police Station Jagat Puri, District Shahdara, under Sections 354(D)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
4. The impugned FIR was registered on 27.01.2019 on the complaint of respondent No. 2, who alleged that she had previously been on friendly terms with the petitioner, which she had terminated due to his alleged abusive conduct. She further alleged that despite a compromise between the parties whereby they agreed not to contact each other, the petitioner continued to follow and harass her, and on 27.01.2019 at about 6:00 P.M., he followed her to her friend’s residence, forcibly entered the premises, and harassed her.
5. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed in January 2020. The case [Cr. Case 504/2022] is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, at the stage of “Misc/Appearance”, and is next listed on 08.04.2026.
6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 15.12.2025.
7. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR, alongwith consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
8. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by Mr. Sharma and the IO.
9. Respondent No. 2 affirms before the Court that the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, and she has no objection to quashing of the impugned FIR.
10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
11. Although the offence under Section 354(D) of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.
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 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 certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of seri
