Delhi High Court – Orders
Yogesh Sawariya vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 4 August, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~96 to 98
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010332782026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & CRL.M.A. 22245-22246/2026
YOGESH SAWARIYA .....Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
# CNR No. DLHC010333072026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2959/2026 & CRL.M.A. 22270-22271/2026
VIPIN ALIAS SANJU .....Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
# CNR No. DLHC010273602026
+ W.P.(CRL) 1882/2026 & CRL.M.A. 18826-18827/2026
YOGESH SAWARIYA AND ANR .....Petitioners
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Appearance: Mr. Suresh Sisodia & Mr. Sushant Dogra, Advocates
for Petitioners in Item Nos. 96 to 98.
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Mr. Narendra
Kumar, Advocate for State in Item Nos. 96 & 97.
Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for State in Item No. 98.
SI Hitesh, PS Nihal Vihar.
Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate for R-2 in Item No. 96
to 98 alongwith Complainant in Person on VC.
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 1 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 04.08.2026
W.P.(CRL.) 1882/2026
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 232/2026 dated 31.03.2026,
registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Outer District, Delhi, under
Sections 115(2)/118(l)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[“BNS”], on the basis of a mutual settlement between the parties.
2. I have heard Mr. Sushant Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Anand V. Khatri, learned Additional Standing Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the State.
3. All parties are present before this Court, and have been duly
identified by their respective learned counsel, as well as by the
Investigating Officer.
4. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 are first cousins; their
mothers are siblings, as are their fathers.
5. The impugned FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent
No. 2, alleging that, on 28.03.2026, at about 11:30 PM, while the
complainant was returning home, he was wrongfully restrained by the
petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 was armed with a sharp-edged chicken knife
and petitioner No. 1 was armed with an iron rod. It is further alleged that
both petitioners assaulted respondent No. 2, causing injuries. Respondent
No. 2 thereafter ran away from the spot, and was taken to Sanjay Gandhi
Memorial Hospital by his mother.
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 2 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
6. Chargesheet has not been filed in the matter. However, during the
course of investigation, offence under Section 109(1) BNS
[corresponding to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860] was
added.
7. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioners and
respondent No. 2 entered into a settlement, as recorded by a
Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated 11.06.2026. The
settlement contemplates the petitioners selling their residential house
[bearing No. A-21, Ambica Enclave, Nihal Vihar VTC, Nangloi, Delhi –
110041], as well as petitioner No. 1 re-locating his scrap business from
Shani Bazar, Nihal Vihar, Delhi, to an alternative place.
8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
Respondent No. 2, who is present in person, categorically affirms that he
has settled the disputes amicably and does not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners. To this effect, an affidavit of no
objection has also been filed by respondent No. 2, which states that
disputes stands settled pursuant to MoU dated 11.06.2026, and that there
is no objection to quashing of the impugned FIR.
10. Mr. Khatri has handed up a status report, including the Medico-
Legal Case [“MLC”] of respondent No. 2, which is taken on record. The
MLC records that respondent No. 2 sustained superficial laceration on the
occipital region and occipito-parietal region and a bone deep laceration in
his right little finger. His radiological investigation were suggestive of
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 3 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
fractures of the nasal bone and an un-displaced linear fracture in the left
parietal region. Based on these injuries, the concerned surgeon has opined
that the injuries were grievous in nature, whereas the Orthopedic
specialist has characterised the injury as simple in nature. Respondent No.
2 is present on video conference, and states that all injuries sustained by
him have healed, and no permanent damage was caused thereby.
11. The Investigating Officer has also verified the factum of the
settlement as well as its due compliance. The said status report records
that the petitioners have entered into an Agreement to Sell in respect of
the residential property in question, and have received a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- as earnest money. It further records that respondent No. 2 has,
in writing, acknowledged that petitioner No. 1 has shifted his scrap
business from the premises.
12. It is well settled that even in cases involving non-compoundable
offences, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may
quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a genuine and voluntary
settlement between the parties, where the circumstances so warrant and
where such quashing would serve the ends of justice. 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 of1
(2012) 10 SCC 303 [hereinafter, “Gian Singh”].
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 4 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
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-
2
fast category can be prescribed.”
13. Subsequently, three decisions of the Supreme Court have
specifically addressed proceedings arising under Section 307 of the IPC:
(a) In Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.3,
after considering the decision in Gian Singh and various other judgments
concerning Section 307 IPC, the Supreme Court crystallised the
governing principles in the following terms:
“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 the2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 5 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
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
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
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 6 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
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
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
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 7 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
(b) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan &Ors.4, the
Supreme Court reaffirmed and reiterated the above principles governing
the exercise of inherent powers in cases involving Section 307 IPC.
(c) More recently, in Naushey Ali &Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
&Anr.5, the Supreme Court applied these settled principles to quash a
prosecution under Section 307 IPC in light of the facts and the
compromise between the parties.
14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I
am of the considered view that this is a fit case for exercising the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution.
The allegations in the impugned FIR are stated to have arisen out of a
quarrel and scuffle between close family members, in connection with
competing scrap businesses of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The
dispute is essentially an inter se family dispute, which has since been
amicably resolved by way of a MoU dated 11.06.2026, i.e., within a
relatively short time of the incident in question. Under the settlement, the
petitioners have undertaken to relocate both, their residence and their
business, from the respondent Nos. 2’s area. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are
young individuals aged 30 years and 23 years, respectively, while
respondent No. 2 is 22 years of age. Although certain injuries sustained
by respondent No. 2 have been opined to be grievous, respondent No. 2 is
present before this Court and categorically states that he has since
4
(2019) 5 SCC 688, [hereinafter, “Laxmi Narayan”].
5
(2025) 4 SCC 78.
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 8 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
recovered from the injuries, and there are no lasting consequences. He
further affirms that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without
any force, coercion or undue influence, and that he does not wish to
pursue the allegations any further. In such circumstances, continuation of
the proceedings would diminish family harmony. The possibility of
conviction, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, also
appears remote and bleak, and continuation of the present criminal
proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR
No. 232/2026 dated 31.03.2026, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar,
Outer District, Delhi, under Sections 115(2)/118(l)/3(5) of the BNS,
alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating there from, is hereby
quashed.
16. However, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to impose
costs upon the petitioners, as well as require them to undertake
community service, as follows:
a. The petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- each, to be
deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association [A/C No.
15530110179338, IFSC No. UCBA0001553, Bank Name: UCO
Bank, Branch: Delhi High Court] within a period of four weeks. A
compliance affidavit shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.
b. The petitioners are directed to report to the Medical Superintendent
of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 10.08.2026 at 11 A.M. The
Medical Superintendent is requested to assign appropriate duties to
them, either jointly or individually, for 10 sessions of three hours
each. The sessions may be scheduled at the convenience of theBAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 9 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
Hospital, taking into account any professional or work-related
commitments of the petitioners; however, the same shall be
completed within a period of three months from today. The Medical
Superintendent is requested to issue a certificate of compliance,
which the petitioners are directed to place before this Court within
one month thereafter. A copy of this judgment be transmitted by the
Registry to the Medical Superintendent.
17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the
settlement.
18. The petitions stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid.
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 2959/2026
19. In view of the order passed above in W.P.(CRL.) 1882/2026, the
captioned bail applications, alongwith pending applications, are rendered
infructuous, and therefore, stand disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
AUGUST 4, 2026
AD/SS’/
BAIL APPLN. 2954/2026 & connected matters. Page 10 of 10
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 07/08/2026 at 20:42:29
