Delhi High Court – Orders
M D Asif And Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 17 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~96
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 473/2026
M D ASIF AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Salman Hashmi, Ms. Zeeshan
Hashmi, Ms. Sana Hashmi, Mr.
Sheezan Hashmi and Mr. Kamran
Khan, Advocates alongwith
Petitioners in Person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
Mr. Uzair Khan, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 17.03.2026
CRL.M.A. 7978/2026 (for early hearing)
By way of this application, the applicants – petitioners seek early
hearing of the captioned petition, which is next scheduled to be listed
25.04.2026.
For the reasons stated therein, and with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the application is allowed. The petition is taken up
for hearing.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 473/2026
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. 177/2021 dated 07.05.2021, registered at Police
CRL.M.C. 473/2026 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 20/03/2026 at 21:27:13
Station Dayal Pur, District North-East, New Delhi, under Sections 307/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Notice was issued in the captioned petition vide order dated
19.01.2026.
3. The allegations, as emerging from the impugned FIR, are that on
06.05.2021, at around 7:30 PM, when the complainant had gone to a
mosque in New Mustafabad to offer prayers, he was intimidated by the
accused persons [petitioners herein], who stated that the complainant’s
brother had verbally abused them. They thereafter held him, and
petitioner No. 2 stabbed the complainant in the underarm and threatened
to kill him. The complainant started screaming, at which point the
accused persons fled the spot. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to
the Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, by his brother.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed. A
copy of the Medico-Legal Certificate dated 06.05.2021, issued by
Loknayak Hospital, New Delhi, has been placed on record, which
indicates that the injuries sustained were grievous.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings, with the intervention of
family members and well-wishers, the parties amicably resolved their
disputes, and the petitioners paid respondent No. 2 – complainant a sum
of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
7. The parties are present before the Court, and have been duly
identified by the Investigating Officer as well as by their respective
CRL.M.C. 473/2026 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 20/03/2026 at 21:27:13
learned counsel.
8. While it is well settled that, even in cases involving non-
compoundable offences, the High Court may invoke its inherent
jurisdiction, as recognised under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding
to Section 528 of the BNSS], to quash criminal proceedings on the basis
of a compromise arrived at between the parties, the exercise of such
jurisdiction remains discretionary. In this regard, certain guiding
principles have been evolved to assist the Court in the adjudication of
applications of this nature.
9. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, 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 and1
(2012) 10 SCC 303 [hereinafter, “Gian Singh”].
CRL.M.C. 473/2026 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 20/03/2026 at 21:27:13
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
10. Subsequently, three judgments of the Supreme Court have
specifically dealt with proceedings arising out of offences punishable
under Section 307 of the IPC:
a. In Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.3, after
examining the decision in Gian Singh and several other decision
concerning Section 307 of the IPC, the Supreme Court held as
follows:
“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
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 473/2026 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 20/03/2026 at 21:27:13
(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 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
CRL.M.C. 473/2026 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 20/03/2026 at 21:27:13
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.”4
b. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors.5, a three-
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles
governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the
CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS]. While setting
aside an order quashing proceedings against the accused for
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, the
Court observed that the High Court ought to have scrutinised the
entire conspectus of facts, including the medical evidence, the
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 473/2026 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 20/03/2026 at 21:27:13
nature of the dispute, the nature of weapons used, as well as the
conduct of the accused, rather than relying solely upon a
compromise between the complainant and the accused.
c. More recently, in Naushey Ali and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Anr.6, the Supreme Court applied the aforesaid principles to
quash a prosecution under Section 307 of the IPC. Having regard
to the overall circumstances of the case, including the nature of the
weapons used [lathi and iron bars] and the injuries sustained, the
Court observed that, at the highest, the offence alleged would fall
under Section 326 of the IPC. Pertinently, the police had also filed
a closure report in the said case.
11. Mr. Salman Hashmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramgopal and Anr. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh7, wherein the Court, exercising its powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the criminal proceedings in
relation to Sections 294/323/326/34 of the IPC, read with Section 3 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, on the ground of settlement. It may be noted that, while doing so,
the Court cautioned against the quashing of proceedings involving grave
and heinous offences on the ground of settlement, emphasizing that such
decisions must turn on the facts and circumstances of each case.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid principles, I am of the view that this
is not a case where the inherent powers of this Court ought to be
exercised to quash the proceedings on the basis of a compromise between
5
(2019) 5 SCC 688.
6
(2025) 4 SCC 78, paragraphs 28 to 33.
CRL.M.C. 473/2026 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 20/03/2026 at 21:27:13
the parties. The Medico-Legal Certificate records that the complainant
suffered grievous injuries, which were inflicted by stabbing. The
complainant is also stated to have remained hospitalised for a period of
12 days. The chargesheet records that, after the commission of the
offence, the accused persons were absconding, and non-bailable warrants
were issued against them. Further, the weapon of offence, namely a ‘छु री’,
has been recovered at the instance of petitioner No. 2, which lends prima
facie support to the prosecution case.
13. In these circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the inclusion
of Section 307 of the IPC is merely ornamental. On the contrary, the
nature of the weapon used, the manner of its use, and the gravity of the
injuries prima facie disclose an offence of a serious nature. Accordingly,
the criminal process having been set in motion, I do not deem it a fit case
for quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of a compromise.
14. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
15. Needless to say, the observations in the present order will not affect
the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending criminal
proceedings.
16. The date of hearing already fixed, i.e. 25.04.2026, stands cancelled.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 17, 2026
‘pv/KA’/
7
Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, decided on 29.09.2021.
CRL.M.C. 473/2026 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 20/03/2026 at 21:27:13