Delhi High Court – Orders
Sh. Himanshu Rathi vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 21 July, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~93 Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5057/2026
SH. HIMANSHU RATHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advocate,
along with Petitioner in person
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
for State.
SI Sunil Kumar, PS Kapashera.
[M:-8527370678]
Mr. Yogesh, Advocate for R-2,
along with R-2 on Video
Conference ["VC"].
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 21.07.2026
CRL.M.A. 21197/2026 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 21198/2026 (Condonation of delay in re-filing)
The petitioner has filed the present application seeking condonation
of 15 days’ delay in re-filing the captioned petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
the delay in re-filing the petition is condoned.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 5057/2026
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], corresponding
CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 21:16:46
to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC“],
seeking quashing of FIR No. 356/2024 dated 05.09.2024, registered at
Police Station Kapashera, District South West, Delhi, under Sections
118(2)/126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], and
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 [“Arms Act“], alongwith all
proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the dispute between
the parties has been amicably settled.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Yogesh,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. The petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by his
learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is
present through video conference and has likewise been identified by his
learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.
4. The allegations, as set out in the FIR, are that on 05.09.2024, the
complainant [respondent No. 2 herein] was driving his employer’s car
after picking up his employer’s daughter from school. It is alleged that,
near Bijwasan Toll Tax, the complainant was intercepted by the
petitioner, who was riding a motorcycle. A quarrel is stated to have
thereafter ensued on account of a dispute regarding the complainant
giving way on the road, during which the petitioner allegedly abused and
assaulted the complainant and subsequently attacked him with a knife,
causing a stab injury to his abdomen. The injured complainant was
thereafter taken to Manipal Hospital, where his MLC was prepared. The
petitioner was, in the meantime, apprehended at the spot by members of
the public and handed over to the police, resulting in the registration of
CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 21:16:46
the FIR.
5. The chargesheet has already been filed, and the proceedings are
presently at the stage of prosecution evidence before the learned
Magistrate’s Court.
6. In the meantime, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered
into a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 14.05.2026. The settlement
records that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and that
respondent No. 2 shall cooperate with the quashing of the present FIR
and all proceedings emanating therefrom. Respondent No. 2 further states
that he has not suffered any permanent injury or disability on account of
the incident.
7. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
8. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
9. The Supreme Court has consistently recognised that, in appropriate
cases, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash
criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences
where the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. Such power may
be exercised where, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose
and the settlement between the parties does not adversely affect any
overriding public interest.
CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 21:16:46
10. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.,1 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 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-and-fast category can be
2
prescribed.”
Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,3 the
1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 21:16:46
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. 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
CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 21:16:46
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
11. The offences alleged in the subject FIR arise out of a sudden
altercation. Although a sharp-edged weapon is alleged to have been used
during the incident, respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that he did
not suffer any permanent injury or disability as a result thereof. The
allegations do not, therefore, disclose any element of heinous criminality,
that would warrant the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
12. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is also
significant that respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed before the
Court that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily. In these
circumstances, the possibility of the criminal proceedings culminating in
a conviction appears remote, and their continuation would serve no
meaningful purpose. The same would instead amount to a futile exercise,
unnecessarily burdening the criminal justice system and consuming
valuable public resources.
13. However, having regard to the nature of the offence, I accept the
suggestion advanced by Mr. Chauhan that the present case is an
appropriate one for the imposition of costs and for directing the petitioner
to undertake community service as a condition for quashing the criminal
proceedings.
14. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed
and FIR No. 356/2024 dated 05.09.2024, registered at Police Station
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 21:16:46
Kapashera, District South West, Delhi, under Sections 118(2)/126(2) of
the BNS and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, alongwith all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed,
subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 2
towards costs and depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the Delhi High
Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC
No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch], within a
period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall thereafter file an
affidavit, alongwith proof of such payment and deposit, within a further
period of one week.
15. The petitioner shall also undertake community service at
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, the petitioner shall report
to the Medical Superintendent on 29.07.2026 at 11:00 a.m. The Medical
Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties to the petitioner, who
shall complete eight sessions of community service, each of three hours’
duration, within a period of three months. Upon completion of the
aforesaid community service, the Medical Superintendent is further
requested to issue a certificate of compliance, which the petitioner shall
place on record before this Court within a period of two weeks thereafter.
16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
17. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands
disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 21, 2026
‘pv’/MK/
CRL.M.C. 5057/2026 Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 21:16:46
