Delhi High Court – Orders
Mahesh Kumar & Anr vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 26 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~36 & 37
* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3289/2025
MAHESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ria Goyal & Ms. Akriti
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP & Mr.
Abhishek Juneja for State with SI
P. Buno, PS Madhu Vihar.
Mr. Raj Kumar & Mr. Deepak
Kumar, Advocates for Respondent
Nos. 2-5.
+ CRL.M.C. 3316/2025
DINESH SWAMI& ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar & Mr. Deepak
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
&ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
& Mr. Sunil Arya for State with SI
P. Buno, PS Madhu Vihar.
Ms. Ria Goyal & Ms. Akriti
Mishra, Advocates for Respondent
Nos. 2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 26.02.2026
CRL.M.A. 14471/2025(for exemption) inCRL.M.C. 3289/2025
CRL.M.C. 3289/2025 &CRL.M.C. 3316/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 03/03/2026 at 20:31:09
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applicationstands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. Nos. 3289/2025&3316/2025
1. Issue notice. Mr. Aashneet Singh andMr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan,
learned Additional Public Prosecutors, accept notice on behalf of the
State. Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of
respondents No. 2 to 5in CRL.M.C. 3289/2025. Ms. Ria Goyal, learned
counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3in CRL.M.C.
3316/2025.
2. These petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC“]) seek quashing of two cross-
FIRs arising out of the same incident dated 23.05.2015 at ISBT Anand
Vihar, Delhi, namely:
(i) FIR No. 541/2015 dated 23.05.2015 registered at Police
Station Madhu Vihar, District East, Delhi, under Sections
308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC“] in
CRL.M.C. No. 3289/2025; and
(ii) FIR No. 542/2015 dated 23.05.2015 registered at Police
Station Madhu Vihar, District East, Delhi, under Sections
186/332/353/427/34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Delhi
Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007,in CRL.M.C.
No. 3316/2025.
The respective complainants in the two FIRs have been arrayed as
respondent No. 2 in these petitions.
CRL.M.C. 3289/2025 &CRL.M.C. 3316/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 03/03/2026 at 20:31:09
3. The parties were working as porters and bus driver/conductor,
respectively, at ISBT Anand Vihar. The petitions are founded on a
settlement arrived at between the parties.
4. FIR No. 541/2015 was registered at the instance of Kuldeep Kumar
(porter), alleging that a quarrel erupted between him and the bus driver
and his associates regarding the loading/unloading of luggage, during
which the petitioners allegedly assaulted him and others with rods,
causing injuries.
5. On the same day, FIR No. 542/2015 was registered at the instance
of Umesh Kumar (bus driveremployed with Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation), alleging that the porters had obstructed the
discharge of his official duty, assaulted him and his associates with sticks
and caused damage to the government vehicle.The incident thus resulted
in cross-cases between the parties.
6. The injured persons from both sides were medically examined at
Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital. The Medico Legal Cases reflect that the
injuries sustained were simple in nature.
7. In CRL.M.C. 3289/2025, chargesheet has been filed, and the
matter is pending before the learned Sessions Courtat the stage of “Misc.
cases”. In CRL.M.C. 3316/2025, the chargesheet has also been filed, and
the matter is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at the
stage of “misc./appearance”.
8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably
resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding
dated 19.11.2024. In terms thereof, both sides have agreed to withdraw
CRL.M.C. 3289/2025 &CRL.M.C. 3316/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 03/03/2026 at 20:31:09
all allegations against each other and to cooperate in getting the aforesaid
FIRs quashed.
9. The present petitions have accordingly been filed, seeking
quashing of the aforesaid FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
10. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that two persons
involved in the incident, namely Subhash Chand and Ashwani Kumar
Srivastava, have since expired. Their death certificates have been placed
on record.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. All parties are present
before the Court, and have been duly identified by the Investigating
Officer as well as by their respective counsel. The parties have confirmed
before the Court that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily and
that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against each
other, which arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties.
12. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances,
the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings,
even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that
there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant,
especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.
13. 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 its1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 3289/2025 &CRL.M.C. 3316/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 03/03/2026 at 20:31:09
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
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 giving2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 3289/2025 &CRL.M.C. 3316/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 03/03/2026 at 20:31:09
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 oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
CRL.M.C. 3289/2025 &CRL.M.C. 3316/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 03/03/2026 at 20:31:09
quashing the criminal cases.”4
14. The present case arises out of a sudden altercation between two
sets of persons engaged in their respective vocations at ISBT Anand
Vihar, one side being porters and the other being a bus driver employed
with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and his
associates. The incident appears to have stemmed from a
misunderstanding regarding the loading and unloading of luggage, which
escalated into a scuffle, resulting in cross-allegations and registration of
the aforesaid FIRs. The medical records placed on record indicate that the
injuries sustained by the parties were simple in nature. The matter has
been amicably settled between the parties, and the complainants have
categorically expressed their desire not to pursue the proceedings any
further.I do not discern any element of heinous criminality, or any other
supervening public interest in the cross-proceedings being taken to their
logical conclusion. In view of the settlement, the possibility of conviction
appears remote, and continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose. Rather, it would only perpetuate hostility between the
parties and result in unnecessary expenditure of judicial time.
15. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed, and FIR No. 541/2015
dated 23.05.2015 registered at P.S. Madhu Vihar under Sections
308/506/34 IPC [in CRL.M.C. No. 3289/2025] and FIR No. 542/2015
dated 23.05.2015 registered at P.S. Madhu Vihar under Sections
186/332/353/427/34 IPC and Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of
Defacement of Property Act, 2007 [in CRL.M.C. 3316/2025], and all
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 3289/2025 &CRL.M.C. 3316/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 03/03/2026 at 20:31:09
proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
16. The petitions, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stand
disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
‘pv/JM’/
CRL.M.C. 3289/2025 &CRL.M.C. 3316/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 03/03/2026 at 20:31:09