Delhi High Court – Orders
Smt Jyoti vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 20 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~43 & 44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6299/2025
SMT JYOTI .....Petitioner
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
+ CRL.M.C. 6334/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26771/2025
SUNIL KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
STATE (GNCTD) & ANR. .....Respondents
Appearance:- Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Advocate for Petitioner in Item
No. 43. [M:-7838463577]
Mr. Vishal, Advocate for R-2 & 3 in Item No. 43 and
for Petitioners in Item No. 44.
Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with Mr. Tushar
Nirwan, Advocate.
ASI Jitender Singh & SI Pawel, PS Kanjhawala
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 20.02.2026
1. The present petitions seek quashing of two FIRs, being FIR No.
284/2017 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 6299/2025] and FIR No.
285/2017 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 6334/2025]. Both FIRs are dated
13.07.2017, lodged at Police Station Kanjhawala, New Delhi. FIR No.
284/2017 has been registered for offences punishable under Sections
279/337/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and FIR No.
285/2017 has been registered for offences punishable under Sections
323/354/354(A)/354(B)/427/506/34 of IPC. The petitions are founded on
a settlement arrived at between the parties.
CRL.M.C. 6299/2025 & Connected Matter Page 1 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:09
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
accept notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Vishal, learned counsel, accepts
notice on behalf of the complainants in CRL.M.C. 6299/2025. Mr.
Ashutosh Rana, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the
complainant in CRL.M.C. 6344/2025.
3. The petitions are taken up for hearing together with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties.
4. The cross-FIRs have been filed due to a dispute arising out of a
road traffic accident. Both FIRs arise out of an incident which took place
on 12.07.2017. In FIR No. 284/2017, the allegation against the petitioner
in CRL.M.C. 6299/2025, is that the petitioner, who was travelling in a
car, hit the complainants, who were travelling on a motorcycle, from
behind causing them to fall and sustain injuries. On the other hand, in FIR
No. 285/2017, the allegation against the petitioners in CRL.M.C.
6334/2025 is that their motorcycle came in front of her car after taking a
wrong turn, resulting in the petitioners threatening and assaulting the
complainant due to the said accident. There were also allegations under
Section 354/354(A)/354 (B) against petitioner No.1.
5. Chargesheets have been filed in both the cases.
6. During the pendency of the proceedings, all the cases have been
settled in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.09.2023.
7. All parties are present and are identified by the Investigating
Officer and by their learned counsel. The parties have confirmed before
the Court that they have settled their disputes, and do not wish to proceed
with the criminal proceedings against each other.
8. The complainant CRL.M.C. 6334/2025 is present in Court, and
CRL.M.C. 6299/2025 & Connected Matter Page 2 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:09
states that allegations under Section 354/354(A)354(B) were made due to
a misunderstanding in connection with a road accident dispute.
9. The present petitions have now been filed for quashing of the FIRs,
with regard to certain non-compoundable offences.
10. Even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the Supreme
Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the FIR on
the ground of settlement. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 notCRL.M.C. 6299/2025 & Connected Matter Page 3 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:09
exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-
fast category can be prescribed.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6
SCC 466], 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. 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. 6299/2025 & Connected Matter Page 4 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:09
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.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
11. The present matters arise out of a road traffic accident. There is no
allegation of any deliberate or intentional act. The matter is
predominantly personal in nature. I am informed that the injuries suffered
are simple in nature. The complainant in CRL.M.C. 6334/2025 has also
submitted before of this Court that allegations under Sections
354/354(A)/354(B) IPC arose due to a misunderstanding. This appears to
me to be a fit case, in which inherent power of this Court can be used to
quash the cross-FIRs. 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
proceedings in the present FIRs would, in my view, be an unnecessary
diversion of judicial resources.
12. The petitions are, therefore, allowed, and all proceedings
emanating from FIR No. 284/2017 and FIR No. 285/2017, both dated
13.07.2017, and lodged at Police Station Kanjhawala, New Delhi, are
hereby quashed.
13. The petitions stand disposed of.
14. The parties are bound by the terms of the settlement.
PRATEEK JALAN,
FEBRUARY 20, 2026/’pv’/AD/
CRL.M.C. 6299/2025 & Connected Matter Page 5 of 5
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 23/02/2026 at 20:44:09
