Delhi High Court – Orders
Meenakshi Bhatnagar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 May, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~130 Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3996/2026 & CRL.M.A. 16189/2026
MEENAKSHI BHATNAGAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Arpita Rawat, Mr.
Abhishek Verma, Advocates for
petitioners with petitioners in
person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr.
Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate.
Mr. Zahid Ali Gahlot, Advocate
for R-2 with R-2 in person.
SI Vipin, PS: Mukherjee Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 19.05.2026
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. 266/2014 dated 15.03.2014, registered at Police
Station Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi, under Sections 323/354/506/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Zahid Ali Gahlot,
CRL.M.C. 3996/2026 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 25/05/2026 at 20:51:24
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –
complainant.
3. The parties are present in Court, and have been duly identified by
the Investigating Officer as well as their respective learned counsel.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.
2, who alleged that on 15.06.2013, MCD officials demolished the second
floor being constructed by the complainant’s father, alongwith a portion
of the adjoining property of one Mukat Behari Lal, who was also a
member of the same family. It was alleged that thereafter, the accused
persons forcibly entered the complainant’s house, abused the complainant
and her family members, and assaulted her father, her brother, and pushed
her mother. When the complainant intervened, she was also allegedly
assaulted. She further alleges that Mukat Behari Lal and petitioner No. 4
tore her clothes and molested her.
6. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed. One of
the accused, Mukat Behari Lal, has since passed away on 05.05.2021.
The proceedings against him therefore stand abated. A death certificate
has been annexed to the petition. I am also informed that two of the
victims, being the complainant’s parents, have also since died.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered
into a settlement, as recorded in a Compromise Deed dated 16.05.2026.
8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue pressure, and do
not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against each other.
CRL.M.C. 3996/2026 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 25/05/2026 at 20:51:24
9. The FIR also contains an allegation that the complainant’s brother
suffered certain injuries. However, he is present in Court, and states that
he does not oppose the settlement. It is also noted that he was a witness to
the settlement dated 16.05.2026.
10. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
11. 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.
12. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 legalCRL.M.C. 3996/2026 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 25/05/2026 at 20:51:24
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.”
[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.
CRL.M.C. 3996/2026 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 25/05/2026 at 20:51:24
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.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
13. In the present case, the offences alleged in the subject FIR arises
out of a dispute between parties, who belong to the same family, and live
in adjoining houses. I am also informed that the MLC of the complainant
shows simple injuries and no lasting injuries. The dispute is thus
essentially private in nature, and does not involve any element of public
interest or offences of a heinous nature. Applying the tests laid down by
the Supreme Court, it may be observed that respondent No. 2 has
categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the
Court. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to
result in a conviction, and their continuation would be a mere formality,
adding to the burden on the justice system and unnecessarily consuming
public resources.
14. However, considering the time and effort of the State machinery in
investigating and prosecuting the present FIR, the petitioners are directed
CRL.M.C. 3996/2026 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 25/05/2026 at 20:51:24
to deposit costs of Rs. 25,000/- collectively with the Delhi High Court
Bar Association [A/C No. 15530110179338, IFSC No. UCBA0001553,
Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch: Delhi High Court], within two weeks
from today. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two weeks
thereafter.
15. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and
FIR No. 266/2014 dated 15.03.2014, registered at Police Station
Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi, under Sections 323/354/506/34 of the IPC,
alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed.
16. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly stands
disposed of.
17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 19, 2026
SS/AD/
CRL.M.C. 3996/2026 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 25/05/2026 at 20:51:24
