Delhi High Court – Orders
Kishan Kumar And Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 15 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~35-Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 9318/2025, CRL.M.A. 38905/2025
KISHAN KUMAR AND ANR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP
SI Anil Kumar.
Appearance for R-2 not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 15.04.2026
1. By way of 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“]) the petitioners seek
quashing of FIR No. 387/2017 dated 24.08.2017, registered at Police
Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 [“IPC“], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor,
accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No.2.
3. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their
learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also
present in person and is identified by his learned counsel and the
Investigating Officer.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
CRL.M.C. 9318/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 20:48:33
counsel for the parties.
5. The parties are known to each other as the reside in the same
vicinity. and The FIR in the present case was registered at the instance of
respondent No. 2 against the petitioners, wherein he reported that on the
intervening night of 22-23.08.2017, a theft allegedly took place at his
godown/shop situated at 9/166, 4th Floor, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. He
stated that upon returning, he found the premises to have been accessed
without authorization and that certain goods were missing therefrom. The
alleged stolen property comprised approximately 4,700 pieces of T-shirts,
and further expressed suspicion regarding the involvement of the
petitioners in the said incident.
6. It is stated that charges have been framed against the present
petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 380, 457, 411 read
with Section 34 IPC.
7. The matter was thereafter referred by the learned Trial Court to the
Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, with a view to facilitating
an amicable resolution between the parties through mediation. Pursuant
thereto, the parties entered into a Settlement Deed dated 02.12.2025,
whereby they amicably resolved all their disputes.
8. In terms of the said settlement, the petitioners agreed to pay a total
sum of Rs. 70,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement.
Out of the said amount, Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the petitioners to
respondent No. 2 before the learned Trial Court at the time of
compounding of the offence under Section 411 IPC. Vide order dated
08.12.2025, the learned Trial Court recorded receipt of the said amount
by respondent No. 2 and accordingly acquitted the petitioners of the
CRL.M.C. 9318/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 20:48:33
offence under Section 411 IPC. The remaining amount of Rs. 60,000/-
has been paid in Court today, in terms of the settlement.
9. In light of the aforesaid settlement, the parties seek quashing of the
impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings.
10. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have entered
into a settlement voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or
pressure.
11. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, affirms that he has
received the entire settled amount and that the settlement has been arrived
at voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. He
further states that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
12. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases,
the High Courts may exercise their inherent powers under Section 528 of
the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash criminal
proceedings, including in respect of non-compoundable offences, where
the parties have settled their disputes, particularly when such settlement
does not prejudice any overriding public interest.
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 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 that1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 9318/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 20:48:33
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
prescribed.”2
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
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 9318/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 20:48:33
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 present case primarily arises out of an alleged incident of theft
from the shop of respondent No. 2, in respect of which the parties were
admittedly known to each other. The disputes between them have now
been amicably resolved through mediation and settlement. Respondent
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 9318/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 20:48:33
No. 2 has categorically stated before this Court that he has received the
entire settlement amount and that he has no subsisting grievance against
the petitioners.
15. In view of the voluntary settlement arrived at between the parties,
the nature of the allegations involved, and the categorical statement of
respondent No. 2 before this Court, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the possibility of conviction is remote and that continuation
of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. It is further observed
that no overriding public interest is shown to be adversely affected by
quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed.
Consequently, FIR No. 387/2017 dated 24.08.2017, registered at Police
Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, under Section 380 of IPC, alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
18. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
19. The petition, alongwith the pending application, accordingly stands
disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 15, 2026
SS/SD/
CRL.M.C. 9318/2025 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 20/04/2026 at 20:48:33
