Delhi High Court – Orders
Shri Harpreet Singh & Ors vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 17 July, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~65 Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2028/2026
SHRI HARPREET SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Avinash Chandra Vats, Mr.
Kshitij K. Jha, Advocates,
Advocates along with Petitioners
in person.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
SI Chetan Panwar, PS-Chhawla.
Complainant in person with two
other victims.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 17.07.2026
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 the quashing of FIR No. 370/2025, dated 17.09.2025, registered
at Police Station Chhawala, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections
115(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, [“BNS”],
together with all proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably settled.
CRL.M.C. 2028/2026 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 20/07/2026 at 21:53:13
2. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the petitioners, and the respondent No. 2.
3. At the outset, it is noted that, by order dated 19.03.2026, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that two other victims,
namely, Sambhav and Vishal, had not been impleaded as parties to the
present petition. Accordingly, an application has been filed vide Diary
No. 279637/2026 seeking their impleadment, alongwith their respective
affidavits. Since Sambhav is a minor, the application has been filed on his
behalf through his father, who is also the complainant in the present case.
A fresh Settlement Deed dated 29.06.2026, executed between the
petitioners, respondent No. 2 and the aforesaid victims, has also been
handed over in Court alongwith the application and affidavits. The said
documents are taken on record. The application is allowed, and the other
victims are impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Registry is
directed to assign the application a number.
4. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their
learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No.
2/complainant is also present in person, along with respondent Nos. 3 and
4, who are duly identified by the Investigating Officer. Since respondent
No. 4 is a minor, he is represented through his father, i.e. respondent No.
2. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 state that they do not wish to avail the
assistance of legal counsel.
5. Petitioner No. 5 is stated to be the Director of Ujjwal Bhavishya
Nasha Mukti Sansthan, where respondent No. 2 had been employed in a
managerial capacity for approximately ten months. Respondent No. 2 is
stated to have left the institute about a month prior to the incident on
CRL.M.C. 2028/2026 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 20/07/2026 at 21:53:13
account of an alleged non-payment of his salary.
6. As per the Status Report, the prosecution case is that, on
16.09.2025, respondent No. 2, accompanied by his brother-in-law,
respondent No. 3, and his son, respondent No. 4, was intercepted by
petitioner No. 5 alongwith petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, whereupon they were
allegedly assaulted. It is alleged that petitioner No. 5 assaulted respondent
No. 2 with a baseball bat, while petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 restrained him.
Petitioner No. 2 is alleged to have pelted bricks during the incident,
causing injuries to respondent No. 3, and petitioner No. 3 is further
alleged to have assaulted respondent No. 4. Petitioner No. 4 is stated to
have remained present at the spot and recorded the incident on his mobile
phone. The Status Report further states that respondent No. 2 sustained
injuries which were subsequently opined to be grievous, whereas
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also sustained injuries during the incident.
7. Although the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 2 were
opined to be grievous, on account of a fracture to his hand suffered during
the incident, the respondent No. 2 states that he has since fully recovered
and did not suffer any permanent or lasting disability.
8. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 had earlier settled their
disputes by way of a Settlement Deed dated 07.10.2025. However,
pursuant to the impleadment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as parties to the
present petition, a fresh Settlement Deed dated 29.06.2026 has been
executed between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Under the
terms of the said Settlement Deed, the petitioners have agreed to pay the
treatment expenses and the cost of repairs of the damaged vehicle
towards full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the alleged
CRL.M.C. 2028/2026 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 20/07/2026 at 21:53:13
incident, including the salary allegedly due to respondent No. 2 from
petitioner No. 5. The Settlement Deed further records that the salary
dispute stands fully resolved and that respondent Nos. 3 and 4, whose
injuries were minor in nature, have also settled all their claims arising out
of the incident.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4,
confirm that the Settlement Deed has been executed voluntarily, without
any coercion, undue influence or pressure of any nature.
10. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
11. The Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate circumstances,
High Courts, while exercising their powers under Section 528 of the
BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may quash criminal
proceedings, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, where
a compromise has been reached between the accused and the
complainant, particularly when no overriding public interest is adversely
affected.
12. 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 and1
2012 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 2028/2026 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 20/07/2026 at 21:53:13
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.”
13. 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 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
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 2028/2026 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 20/07/2026 at 21:53:13
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.”4
14. The offences alleged in the present FIR arise out of a personal
dispute between the parties, the genesis whereof lies in the employer-
employee relationship between petitioner No. 5 and respondent No. 2.
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 2028/2026 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 20/07/2026 at 21:53:13
Although the incident resulted in injuries to respondent Nos. 2 to 4,
including a fracture sustained by respondent No. 2, the record indicates
that no sharp-edged weapon or firearm was used during the incident.
Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated before this Court that he has
since fully recovered and has not suffered any permanent or lasting
disability. The Settlement Deed further records that the salary dispute,
which formed the underlying basis of the discord between the parties,
stands fully resolved, and that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have also
amicably settled all their claims arising out of the incident. All the
victims are present before this Court and have unequivocally affirmed
that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion,
undue influence or pressure of any kind, and have expressed no objection
to the quashing of the FIR.
15. In these circumstances, the dispute does not involve any overriding
public interest or element of such grave criminality as would warrant the
continuation of the criminal proceedings despite the settlement. Rather,
the possibility of securing a conviction stands substantially diminished in
view of the voluntary settlement arrived at between all the affected
parties. Consequently, permitting the prosecution to continue would serve
no useful purpose and would only result in the unnecessary expenditure
of judicial time and public resources.
16. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 370/2025, dated 17.09.2025, registered at Police Station
Chhawala, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/3(5) of
BNS, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is
hereby quashed, subject to costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the
CRL.M.C. 2028/2026 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 20/07/2026 at 21:53:13
petitioners to 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.
17. Having regard to the circumstances giving rise to the impugned
FIR and the nature of allegations therein, I am of the view the present
case warrants the imposition of community service upon the petitioners.
The petitioners are further directed to report to the Medical
Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, on 24.07.2026 at 11:00
a.m. for this purpose. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign
suitable duties to the petitioners, either collectively or individually, for a
total of four sessions of three hours each, to be completed within two
months thereafter. Upon completion of the community service, the
Medical Superintendent is requested to issue a certificate of compliance.
The petitioners shall place the said certificate on record within two weeks
thereafter.
18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
19. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands
disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 17, 2026
‘B’/MK/SD/
CRL.M.C. 2028/2026 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 20/07/2026 at 21:53:13
