Karanpreet Singh & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

$~84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 14 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010498692026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3264/2026 & CRL.M.A. 32552/2026
KARANPREET SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Ms. Hemlata Rawat,
Ms. Ananya Suri and Mr. Saurabh,
Advs.
Mob: 8800847578
Email: [email protected]
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for
GNCTD with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar,
Adv.
Mob: 7840058325
Email:
[email protected]
Mr. Arbind Kr. Garg, Adv. for R-2 &
3
Mob: 9654070037
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Ravi Kumar, SI, PS Mayapuri
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 (“Constitution”), read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking quashing of the First
th
Information Report (“FIR”), being FIR No. 121/2026, dated 17 May, 2026,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 1 of 8

registered at Police Station (“PS”) Mayapuri, West, Delhi, under Sections
118/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement
between the parties.
2. Issue Notice.
3. Notice is accepted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel
(“ASC”) for the State as well as by learned counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 2 and 3.
4. The parties, i.e., the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 2 and 3, are
present before this Court, and are duly identified by their respective counsels
as well as the Investigating Officer (“IO”), who is also present before this
Court.
5. The captioned petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the
parties.
6. The relevant facts for the adjudication of the captioned petition, culled
out from the documents on record, are as follows:
th
6.1. The FIR in question came to be registered on 17 May, 2026, pursuant
to the statement of respondent no. 2, i.e., the complainant.
6.2. The facts alleged in the said FIR, briefly, are that the complainant,
along with his friends, had a scuffle with the petitioners, i.e., the accused
persons, outside a Café at Mayapuri, Delhi, during the course of which,
respondent no. 2 and 3 were stabbed by a sharp object, and were consequently
seriously injured.
6.3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved
all their disputes and entered into a settlement vide Compromise Deed dated
th
05 October, 2026, whereby, the parties agreed to cooperate in the quashing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 2 of 8

of the FIR in question.
7. The parties jointly submit that they have settled the matter vide
th
Compromise Deed dated 05 October, 2026.
8. This Court has interacted with the petitioners, as well as the
respondents.
9. The petitioners have expressed sincere regret for their conduct,
tendered their apologies, and undertaken before this Court that they shall not
engage in any such conduct in future.
10. This Court also interacted with respondent nos. 2 and 3, who submit
that they are friends with the petitioners and that incident happened in the heat
of the moment. Further, they state that they do not wish to pursue the present
matter any further.
11. The respondents also tender their apologies, and submit that they shall
be in better control of their emotions.
12. In view thereof, the parties seek quashing of the FIR in question.
13. Learned ASC for the State submits that though the State has objection
to the present petition, however, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the State would be satisfied if some cost is imposed upon the
petitioners as well as the respondents, since the incident in question occurred
on account of all the parties.
14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
notes that the present matter has been finally settled between the parties.
15. Considering the young age of the parties, the fact that they are all
friends, and that they have undertaken to conduct themselves in a dignified
manner in future, this Court exercises its authority in law. This Court further
notes that all the parties were equally responsible for the incident in question.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 3 of 8

16. It is no longer res-integra that this Court has the power to quash the
criminal proceedings in cases of non-compoundable offences under the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”), i.e., now the BNSS, wherein, the
parties have settled the matter between themselves. Thus, this Court is of the
opinion that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal proceedings in the present case, since the offence, although
non-compoundable, has been resolved by way of the Compromise Deed dated
th
05 October, 2026.
17. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the
High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(“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.
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab
and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 4 of 8

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.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. Further, in the case of Narinder Singh and Others. Versus State of
Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Supreme Court has laid down
guidelines for the High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between the
parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said
decision read as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
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:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 5 of 8

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.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. It is to be noted that this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 6 of 8

State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi and Another., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1305 ,
while quashing an FIR on the basis of settlement between the parties held as
follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
6. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be
used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process
of any Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal
proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender
as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case and no generalised list or
categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give
due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the
impact on the society.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present
th
case, FIR No. 121/2026, dated 17 May, 2026, registered at PS Mayapuri,
West, Delhi, under Sections 118/3(5) of the BNSS, and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
22. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and respondent no. 2 shall pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, to the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee (“DHCLSC”).
23. The relevant bank account details of the DHCLSC are as follows:
Name: Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
A/c No: 15530110008386
Bank: UCO BANK
Branch: DELHI HIGH COURT
IFSC: UCBA0001553
24. The aforesaid cost shall be paid, within a period of two weeks, from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 7 of 8

today.
25. The proof of payment shall be filed, within a period of one week
thereafter, before this Court, as well as with the concerned IO.
26. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition, along with the
pending application, is accordingly disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026/ SK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 8 of 8