Krishan Pratap vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Ors

Court
Delhi High Court

$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010268352026
+ CRL.M.C. 4478/2026
KRISHAN PRATAP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
along with Mr. Mohd. Naved and Mr.
Mayank Chaudhary, Advs. for State.
Mr. V. P. Singh, Adv. for R-2.
SI Shivam Bisht, PS Khajuri Khas.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )


1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeks quashing of FIR No.69/2019 dated
01.02.2019 registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) at PS Khajuri Khas, North-East, Delhi and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The present petition has been filed on the basis of a settlement arrived
at with the respondent nos.2 and 3.
3. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 are now married. The
respondent no.3 (complainant) is the maternal uncle of the respondent no.2.
4. The factual conspectus is that on 31.01.2019, the respondent no.3
reported to the police that his niece (the respondent no.2) had left his house
at 03:30 AM and that he suspected that the petitioner had lured her away. On
the basis of the said written complaint, the subject FIR came to be registered

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:35:05
CRL.M.C. 4478/2026 Page 1 of 8

on 01.02.2019.
5. As noticed, the petitioner and the respondent no.2 got married on
10.04.2019, i.e., a little over two months after the registration of the subject
FIR, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were born of the said
wedlock.
6. By the settlement deed dated 28.02.2026, the respondent nos.2 and 3
have agreed that the present FIR be quashed. The said settlement deed reads
as follows:-



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:35:05
CRL.M.C. 4478/2026 Page 2 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:35:05
CRL.M.C. 4478/2026 Page 3 of 8

7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is noticed that
the FIR invokes Section 363 of the IPC alone, and that no other offence has
been alleged. Further, the respondent no.2 married the petitioner within a
short period after the registration of the said FIR and they have lived
together ever since. As noticed, they now have two children and more than
seven years have elapsed since the registration of the FIR. The possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak. The dispute essentially falls within the
private/family domain.
8. The power of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) to
quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences on the basis of

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:35:05
CRL.M.C. 4478/2026 Page 4 of 8

a settlement between the parties is distinct from the power of compounding
conferred on a court, and is not limited by it. In Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“ 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of any court. … However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot
be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. … In other words, the
High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary
to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between
the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and
if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding. ”
9. The principles were thereafter crystallized in Narinder Singh v. State
of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466. In paragraph 29, the Supreme Court observed
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

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:35:05
CRL.M.C. 4478/2026 Page 5 of 8

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.
29.5. 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/delegate 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

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:35:05
CRL.M.C. 4478/2026 Page 6 of 8

settlement between the parties. … ”
10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has, in a fact-situation closely
comparable to the present one, quashed an FIR registered under Section 363
of the IPC. In Pawan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. , CRL.M.C.
4716/2026, decided on 10.07.2026, it was observed as under:-
“ 10. In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014)
6 SCC 466, the Apex Court observed that proceedings, even in non-
compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement
provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful
purpose in continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of
conviction was remote and bleak. Reference be made to Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2012) 10 SCC 303.
11. Since respondent No.3 and petitioner are living a blissful
matrimonial life, continuing with further proceedings would serve
no real or meaningful purpose and would disrupt their stable
family-life. Reference be made to Mohd. Parwej v. State: 2026 SCC
OnLine Del 1030 and Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2026
SCC OnLine Del 1707, wherein also in such fact-situation, the
proceedings were quashed.”
11. Considering the circumstances of the present case, and the dicta laid
down in the aforesaid judgements, there is no impediment to quashing the
subject FIR on the basis of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the
parties.
12. During the course of hearing, the petitioner as also the respondent
no.2 and the respondent no.3 have submitted that the settlement has been
arrived at of their own free will and volition.
13. The petitioner and the respondents have been duly identified by the
concerned Investigating Officer, who is present in Court.
14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.69/2019 dated
01.02.2019 registered under Section 363 of the IPC at PS Khajuri Khas,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:35:05
CRL.M.C. 4478/2026 Page 7 of 8

North-East, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom,
are hereby quashed.
15. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.

SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026/r,sd

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:35:05
CRL.M.C. 4478/2026 Page 8 of 8