Delhi High Court – Orders
Amarjeet Singh Sarna @ Lucky Sarna And … vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 1 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~101
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2412/2026
AMARJEET SINGH SARNA
@ LUCKY SARNA AND ANR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anup Kr. Das, Mr. Narender
Dhir, Ms. Prachi Sharma & Ms.
Ishita Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State.
SI Naresh Kr. Sharma & SI Mange
Ram Sharma, PS Shahdra.
Appearance for R-2 not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 01.04.2026
CRL.M.A. 9847/2026 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026
1. The petitioners have filed this 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. 258/2025 dated 02.08.2025, registered at Police
Station Shahdara, New Delhi, under Sections 109(1)/74/3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], and consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement arrived at between the
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 20:42:51
parties.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya accepts notice on behalf of the
State. Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.
3. The allegations, as emerging from the impugned FIR, are that on
02.08.2025, following a dispute between the complainant’s father and
neighbours over parking area, the petitioners and their associates,
allegedly entered the complainant’s residence. Petitioner No. 1 is alleged
to have pushed and slapped the complainant’s mother, while his son
[petitioner No. 2] restrained her. The petitioners are further alleged to
have used abusive language and made threats to the complainant and his
family. It is also alleged that when the complainant, alongwith his
colleague, attempted to proceed to the police station, they encountered 5-
6 associates of the petitioners, who were allegedly armed with lathis and
a sword. Upon exiting the building, the petitioners are stated to have
thrown bricks and stones from the balcony, resulting in injuries to the
complainant and his colleague, Prashant Chaudhary, who received
medical attention.
4. It is noted that apart from the respondent No.2 herein, other
victims, namely, Prashant Chaudhary and mother of respondent No.2,
have not been impleaded as parties to the present proceedings. However,
they are present on video conference and have stated that they have no
objection to the quashing of the FIR. I am also informed that the
allegation under Section 74 BNS (corresponding to Section 354 IPC)
arose from a misunderstanding in the context of a neighbourhood dispute.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings, and with the intervention
of family members and well-wishers, the parties have amicably resolved
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 20:42:51
their disputes, without any monetary settlement, as recorded in a
settlement deed dated 24.12.2025.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
7. It is now well established that, even in cases involving non-
compoundable offences, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers
under Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the BNSS to quash
proceedings where the parties have reached a compromise. This power,
however, is discretionary, and the Court is guided by certain established
principles when deciding such matters.
8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab the Supreme Court reviewed
several earlier decisions, including those relating to Section 307 IPC
(corresponding to Section 109 of BNS)1, and summarized the legal position
as follows:
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. :
(i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process
of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding
or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the
victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family
and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private
in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
1
Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667.
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 20:42:51
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put
to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding.”2
9. Three subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court specifically
address cases arising under Section 109 of BNS (corresponding to Section
307 IPC):
a. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, after
considering the decision in Gian Singh and other judgments concerning
Section 307 IPC (corresponding to Section 109 of BNS), the Court
distilled the following legal principles:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466, [hereinafter, “Narinder Singh”].
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 20:42:51
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
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
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
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 20:42:51
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
already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 20:42:51
b. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.4, the same
principles were reaffirmed.
c. Subsequently, in the recent decision of Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.5, these principles were applied to set aside a
prosecution under Section 109 of BNS (corresponding to Section 307
IPC).
10. Applying these principles to the present case and considering the
overall facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it is appropriate to
invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings. A
copy of the Medico-Legal Certificate [“MLC”] dated 02.08.2025, issued
by Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, has been handed over in
Court and is taken on record. The MLC indicates that the injuries
sustained are described as “swelling and tenderness present on the right
hand palm” and “abrasion associated with the tenderness over the third
finger of the right hand”; however, the nature of injuries is still pending
observation. Therefore, prima facie, this is not a case where allegations
under Section 109 of BNS (corresponding to Section 307 IPC) are clearly
made out in the MLC.
11. The offence, in the context of the compromise, is predominantly
private in character, arising from a neighbourhood dispute stemming from
a misunderstanding between parties who were already known to each
other. The settlement was reached within five months of registration of
the FIR. In these circumstances, the likelihood of conviction is remote,
and continuation of the proceedings would cause undue hardship and
4
(2019) 5 SCC 688, [hereinafter, “Laxmi Narayan”].
5
(2025) 4 SCC 78.
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 20:42:51
prejudice to the petitioners, notwithstanding the full and complete
settlement with the victims. The fact that the compromise was reached at
an early stage of the investigation further supports the exercise of this
Court’s discretion to quash the FIR.
12. In light of the aforesaid, FIR No. 258/2025 dated 02.08.2025,
registered at Police Station Shahdara, New Delhi, under Sections
109(1)/74/3(5) of BNS, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, is hereby quashed.
13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
14. The petition, alongwith pending application, if any, stand disposed
of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 1, 2026
‘pv’/SD/
CRL.M.C. 2412/2026 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 06/04/2026 at 20:42:51