Ashwani Kumar & ANR. v. The State NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1821/2026 ASHWANI KUMAR & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Dinesh Chander, Advocates.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr. Arijit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 01.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 18378/2026 (EXEMPTION) 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1821/2026 3.

By way of the present petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 055/2026 dated 08.02.2026, at P.S. Sun Light Colony, New Delhi. 4.

The FIR was registered U/S 115(2)/304(2)/79/3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), 2023 on the complaint of respondent no. 2 alleging petitioners of causing hurt, snatching gold chain and outraging The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

modesty of woman.

5.

Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer.

6.

Parties submit that they have settled their dispute by way of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19.05.2026, out of their free will without any undue force, duress, coercion or pressure of any kind.

7.

Respondent no. 2-complainant confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners and he has no objection if the Subject FIRs are quashed against the petitioners. 8.

Offences under Section 79/115(2) of the BNS are compoundable whereas offence under Section 304(2) of the BNS is non-compoundable. 9.

It is trite law that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can compound offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 1, in paragraph no. 61 has held has under:

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

10.

The Supreme Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Punjab & Anr.,2 in paragraph no. 29 has held 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. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(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 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 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc.

Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above.

On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." [Emphasis supplied] 11.

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.3, the Supreme Court had observed as under:- "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to 3 (2017) 9 SCC 641 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

[Emphasis supplied] 12.

In facts of the present case there is no overriding public interest which requires the proceeding to be further carried out. Quashing the FIR would permit the parties to live in peace and harmony, rather than compounding the animosity.

13.

As the parties have settled their disputes, and have affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement, it is also unlikely that further proceedings would result in convictions. Continuation of criminal The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

proceedings in the present FIRs would be an unnecessary diversion of judicial resources.

14.

Bearing in mind overall facts and circumstances and nature of the allegation and offence involved in the instant case and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court FIR No. 055/2026 dated 08.02.2026 registered U/S 115(2)/304(2)/79/3(5) of the BNS is hereby quashed along with all consequential action/ proceedings thereto. 15.

Petition is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 1, 2026 aks The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.