Yogendra Singh v. The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR.

$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 900/2026 YOGENDRA SINGH .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Rahul Khanna, Advocate alongwith petitioner versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State alongwith SI Deepak and ASI Ashwani, P.S.-Maurice Nagar R-2 in person (VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026 1.

The petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 0238/2025 dated 28.10.2025, registered at Police Station Maurice Nagar, North District, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ["BNS"], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a settlement between the parties. 2.

Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conferencing.

3.

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are classmates at Delhi University, Law Centre-II. The FIR came to be registered at the instance CRL.M.C. 900/2026 Page 1 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

of respondent No. 2, who alleged that on 17.10.2025, after receiving multiple calls from an unknown number, he was assaulted outside his classroom at about 11:15 a.m. by an unknown person who obstructed his way, assaulted him with fists and kicks, abused him, and threatened him with death. It was further alleged that during the said incident, the petitioner herein held the hands of respondent No. 2 and instigated the assailant to assault him further. Upon the arrival of other students, the assailant is stated to have fled from the spot. Respondent No. 2 also alleged that the petitioner had threatened him with dire consequences a day prior thereto, i.e., on 16.10.2025, after respondent No. 2 was elected as the Class Representative.

4.

I am informed that the injuries sustained were simple in nature and that no sharp weapon or firearm was used in the commission of the alleged offence.

5.

During the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by way of a Settlement Deed executed between them on 22.01.2026. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 2 has stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties are present before the Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer as well as by their learned counsel.

7.

The parties have confirmed before this Court that they have settled their disputes amicably and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against each other.

8.

Even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the Supreme CRL.M.C. 900/2026 Page 2 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a settlement between the parties. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, the Supreme Court 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 serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.

However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.

The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-andfast category can be prescribed."2 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

2 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 900/2026 Page 3 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under: "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code.

No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2.

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

CRL.M.C. 900/2026 Page 4 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."4 9.

The present case stems from a dispute between classmates of the same college, which culminated in a scuffle. The parties continue to pursue their studies at the same institution and are young in age, being between 21 and 24 years. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably by way of a settlement, and the injuries sustained by respondent No. 2 - the complainant, are stated to be simple in nature. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the present case warrants the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as such an order would advance the ends of justice by enabling the parties to live in peace and harmony rather than perpetuating animosity. 10.

Applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is further noted that respondent No. 2 has categorically affirmed before this Court that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily. In the given factual matrix, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to culminate in a conviction and would amount to an empty formality, thereby unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and leading to the avoidable consumption of public resources.

11.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed, and FIR No. 0238/2025 dated 28.10.2025, registered at Police Station Maurice Nagar, North District, 4 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 900/2026 Page 5 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

12.

Having regard to the circumstances giving rise to the impugned FIR and the nature of allegations therein, I accept the suggestion of Ms. Arya that the present case warrants the imposition of community service upon the petitioner. The petitioner is accordingly directed to report to the Medical Superintendent, St. Stephen's Hospital, Hospital Marg, Railway Colony, Tis Hazari, New Delhi - 110054, on 16.02.2026 at 11:00 a.m., who shall assign him suitable duties and tasks for 4 hours a day for a period of 15 days, to be completed within the next one month. The nature, timing, and duration of such duties shall be determined by the Medical Superintendent. The petitioner shall file a compliance affidavit alongwith a certificate issued by the said hospital on or before 01.04.2026. 13.

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 14.

The petition, alongwith the pending applications, is accordingly disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 3, 2026 dy/SD/ CRL.M.C. 900/2026 Page 6 of 6 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.