Delhi High Court – Orders
Vaibhav Kumar Gupta vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7184/2025
VAIBHAV KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuuj Aggarwal, Advocate
alongwith Petitioner in Person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State.
SI Ajay, PS North Rohini.
R-2 & 3 in Person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 12.02.2026
1. The petitioner has 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. 387/2019 dated 10.12.2019, registered at Police
Station North Rohini, District Rohini, under Sections
323/341/354/354(D)/356/379/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
[“IPC“], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom,
on the ground of settlement.
2. The present FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent
No. 2 against the petitioner.
3. The allegations in the FIR relate to an incident which took place on
09.12.2019. It is alleged that the petitioner and one other individual were
riding a scooty when respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are husband and wife,
were driving alongside them in a car. The allegation against the petitioner
CRL.M.C. 7184/2025 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 13/02/2026 at 20:47:14
is that he passed some inappropriate comment/gesture towards respondent
No. 3. Upon respondent No. 3’s objection to the same, he allegedly
abused them, blocked their car with his scooty, physically assaulted
respondent No. 2, and snatched the chain of respondent No. 3. He then
handed over the chain to the pillion rider, who fled from the spot.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on
10.02.2021. The case [Cr. Case 1976/2021] is pending before the Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), District North West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi, and is next listed on 24.03.2026 for prosecution
evidence.
5. The parties have since entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding/Settlement Agreement dated 01.08.2025 under which Rs.
2,00,000/- is to be paid by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 3.
6. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
7. The petitioner is present in Court and identified by his counsel and
by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2, who himself is an
advocate, is physically present in Court, and respondent No. 3 is present
on video conference. Both are identified by the IO.
8. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 state that the settlement has been entered
into voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. I am informed that
the Medico-Legal Case has been conducted on both the victims and
injuries were found to be simple.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above, it
appears that the allegations under Sections 354 and 354(D) arose out of
the incident of chain snatching and the passing of inappropriate remarks.
CRL.M.C. 7184/2025 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 13/02/2026 at 20:47:14
Respondent No. 3 states that she does not wish to pursue those allegations
any further.
10. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances,
the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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.
11. 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 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 the1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 7184/2025 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 13/02/2026 at 20:47:14
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.”
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 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
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 7184/2025 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 13/02/2026 at 20:47:14
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
12. In view of the nature of the allegations arising out of an incident
pertaining to the alleged passing of inappropriate remarks, simple hurt,
and snatching of a chain, and considering that the parties have amicably
resolved their disputes by way of a settlement, the matter does not appear
to involve any element of heinous criminality or overriding public
interest. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have categorically affirmed before this
Court that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without
any pressure or coercion, and respondent No. 3 has expressed her
unwillingness to pursue the allegations under Sections 354 and 354(D)
IPC any further. In these circumstances, the possibility of conviction
appears remote, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve
no fruitful purpose, but would instead amount to an unnecessary burden
on the judicial system and wastage of valuable judicial time.
13. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 7184/2025 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 13/02/2026 at 20:47:14
respondent No. 3, who states that the entire settlement amount has
already been received by her. There is therefore no impediment to the
grant of the relief sought.
14. In view of the circumstances giving rise to the impugned FIR, I
accept the suggestion of Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, that this is a fit case for imposing costs and
directing the petitioner to undertake community service. The petitioner is
thus directed to report to the Medical Superintendent, Dr. Baba Saheb
Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, on 21.02.2026 at 11:00 A.M. The Medical
Superintendent is requested to assign appropriate duties to the petitioner
for four hours per day, on every Saturday and Sunday, for a period of six
weeks.
15. The Medical Superintendent is directed to issue a certificate of
compliance upon completion of the aforesaid period, which the petitioner
shall place on record within two weeks thereafter.
16. In view thereof, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 387/2019
dated 10.12.2019, registered at Police Station North Rohini, District
Rohini, under Section 323/341/354/354(D)/356/379/509/34 of the IPC,
alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed.
17. The parties will remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
18. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2026
‘pv/JM’/
CRL.M.C. 7184/2025 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 13/02/2026 at 20:47:14