Delhi High Court – Orders
Vakil Ahmed And Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 19 May, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~119-Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1033/2026
VAKIL AHMED AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate for
Petitioner alongwith Petitioners in
Person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Abhinav Kumar and Mr
Ayan Sachdeva, Advocates.
SI Ombir, P.S. Malviya Nagar.
Ms. Anshula Gupta, Advocate for
R2 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 19.05.2026
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] [corresponding
to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC“)],
seeking quashing of FIR No. 76/2026 dated 01.03.2026, registered at
Police Station Malviya Nagar, District South, Delhi, under Sections
333/118(1)/115(2)/351(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 [“BNS”], alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, on the
ground that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled.
2. The parties are present in Court, and have been duly identified by
their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. The petition is
W.P.(CRL) 1033/2026 Page 1 of 6
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 22/05/2026 at 21:39:59
taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent
No.2, who alleged that, at about 1:30 PM on 27.02.2026, when he had
gone to offer prayers, petitioner No. 4, who resides in the same
neighbourhood, verbally abused him and slapped him. Respondent No. 2
thereafter made a PCR call. It is further alleged that, at about 4:30 PM on
the same day, the petitioners herein entered the house of respondent No. 2
armed with knives, whereupon a scuffle ensued between the parties.
4. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 have since amicably resolved
their disputes, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated
12.03.2026, which contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-
towards full and final settlement of all disputes between the parties. The
parties confirm that the said amount has been paid in terms thereof.
5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the disputes between
the parties arose in relation to rights over a terrace. It is further submitted
that the civil proceedings instituted by respondent No. 2 against the
petitioners also stand settled. It may also be noted that the settlement was
arrived at within a short period of the incident in question.
6. Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has
been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence.
7. I am also informed that, although the Medico-Legal Certificate
records injuries caused by a sharp weapon, the injuries have been opined
to be simple in nature. There is no allegation of any lasting injury or
permanent damage.
8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
W.P.(CRL) 1033/2026 Page 2 of 6
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 22/05/2026 at 21:39:59
9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances,
the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the
CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], which 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 byW.P.(CRL) 1033/2026 Page 3 of 6
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 22/05/2026 at 21:39:59
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 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
W.P.(CRL) 1033/2026 Page 4 of 6
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 22/05/2026 at 21:39:59
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.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
10. The offences alleged in the subject FIR arise out of a dispute
between neighbours in relation to rights over a terrace. As noted above,
although the Medico-Legal Certificate records injuries caused by a sharp
weapon, the injuries have been opined to be simple in nature. The
allegations, therefore, do not implicate any wider public interest or
disclose grave criminality. Applying the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court, it is also relevant that respondent No. 2 has affirmed
before this Court that the settlement, which was arrived at within a short
period of the incident in question, has been entered into voluntarily. In
these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is
unlikely to result in a conviction and would serve no useful purpose,
while only contributing to the burden on the criminal justice system and
resulting in unnecessary consumption of public resources.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 76/2026 dated 01.03.2026, registered at Police Station Malviya
Nagar, District South, Delhi, under Sections
333/118(1)/115(2)/351(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS, alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
12. However, having regard to the circumstances giving rise to the
impugned FIR, the petitioners are directed to undertake community
service. The petitioners are, accordingly, directed to report to the Medical
W.P.(CRL) 1033/2026 Page 5 of 6
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 22/05/2026 at 21:39:59
Superintendent, Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi, on 29.05.2026 at 11:30 AM. The petitioners shall perform
community service for four sessions of two hours each, over the next two
months. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign suitable duties
to them, either separately or collectively, and to issue a certificate of
compliance upon completion of the aforesaid period. The petitioners shall
place the same on record within two weeks thereafter.
13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
14. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 19, 2026
‘pv/KA’/
W.P.(CRL) 1033/2026 Page 6 of 6
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 22/05/2026 at 21:39:59
