Pankaj vs State Of Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.10.2026

# CNR No.DLHC010238362026
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026, CRL.M.A.16746/2026
+
PANKAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumeet Anand, Mr.Pratyush
Parimal, Advs. along with petitioner
in person.
versus
STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC
(Criminal) along with Mr. Alok
Sharma, Ms. Sonia Malhotra and Ms.
Pavitra Dixit, Advs. for State.
SI Vikas Chand, PS Chanakya Puri.
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.51/2026 dated
10.04.2026, registered under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (“BNS”) at PS Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The factual conspectus as set out in the FIR is that on 09.04.2026 at
about 07:30 PM, the respondent no.2 was turning his car left towards the
Petrol/CNG Pump on Vinay Marg, New Delhi. A motorcycle came from
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 1 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

behind and struck the left side of the car. The motorcyclist parked his
motorcycle and came up to the respondent no.2. The concerned motorcyclist
abused the respondent no.2 and struck him on the head with the helmet he
was carrying, on account of which the respondent no.2 fell unconscious.
3. The FIR was registered on 10.04.2026. The petitioner was identified
through CCTV footage.
4. As per the MLC, the respondent no.2 reached Venkateshwar Hospital
on 09.04.2026, and the nature of the injuries sustained by him has been
opined by the concerned doctor to be simple. He was discharged on
10.04.2026 itself.
5. Regular bail was granted to the petitioner thereafter on 23.04.2026 by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House
Courts, in Bail Matter No.850/2026, on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount. While doing so, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed that the injuries had been opined
to be simple, that the weapon of offence had been recovered, that the
petitioner was not a flight risk and that he had clean antecedents.
6. The present petition is supported by an Affidavit-cum-No Objection
Certificate dated 28.04.2026 of the respondent no.2. The same reads as
follows:
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 2 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 3 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 4 of 11





Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

7. The respondent no.2 (Ravinder Dahiya) has joined the proceedings

virtually. He reiterates that he is desirous of settling the matter with the
petitioner and reiterates the contents of the said affidavit. He further affirms
that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, of his own free will, and
without any pressure, coercion, undue influence or inducement from any
quarter, and that he does not wish to pursue the prosecution any further.
8. The respondent no.2 and the petitioner have been duly identified by
the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court.
9. This Court is conscious that the offence under Section 110 of the BNS
(which corresponds to Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) deals
with attempt to commit culpable homicide. The said offence is not
compoundable. However, the power of this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings is
distinct from the power of compounding conferred on a court, and is not
limited by it.
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 5 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303, a three-Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court summarized the position in paragraph 61 as
follows:
“ 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.
”
11. 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 the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 6 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

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
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 7 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

on complete settlement between the parties. …
”
12. The considerations which must guide the exercise of the power were
summarised in Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022) 14 SCC 531.
The same reads as follows:
“19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 CrPC
where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the
parties in respect of offences “compoundable” within the statutory
framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court
under Section 482 CrPC or vested in this Court under Article 142
of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 CrPC . Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of
wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the
society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
the victim; and
19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.
”
13. This Court has repeatedly applied these principles to the very offence
in question. In Mithilesh Kumar Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi , order dated
10.12.2025 in W.P.(Crl) 2634/2025, a petition seeking quashing of an FIR
registered under Section 110 of the BNS alone, it was observed:
“8. Although the offence under Section 110 BNS cannot be treated
as strictly ‘in personam’, and it touches upon public concerns
rather than being confined to individual grievances, the Court must
also account for the practical realities of securing a conviction in
the present case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in
cases where the complainant has entered into a voluntary and
bona fide settlement, and is no longer inclined to support the
prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction becomes
exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 8 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no
worthwhile public interest.
9. Respondent No. 2 has categorically expressed his unwillingness
to pursue the matter further and has confirmed the settlement as
voluntary and devoid of any coercion. He has also stated that the
scuffle occurred on the spur of the moment and that there was no
pre-existing motive on behalf of the Petitioner. Although the MLC
reflects the injuries as grievous in nature, the investigation record
does not reveal the use of any weapon, nor does it indicate that the
act was preceded by planning, targeting, or any deliberate attempt
to cause harm of a fatal nature. The suddenness of the altercation,
the absence of premeditation, and the circumstances in which the
injuries were inflicted collectively cast doubt on the presence of the
intention or knowledge required to establish an offence under
Section 110 BNS. At this stage, while this Court refrains from
recording any conclusive determination on merits, these factors
substantially weaken the likelihood of proving the requisite mens
rea for an “attempt to commit culpable homicide”. When viewed
together with the complainant’s unequivocal stance, the prospect of
the prosecution securing a conviction becomes exceedingly remote.
Given this background, the continuation of criminal proceedings
would amount to an empty formality, adding to the burden of the
justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.”
14. To similar effect is Harsh Sehrawat v. State of NCT of Delhi , (order

dated 28.01.2026 in CRL.M.C. 4361/2025) where an FIR under Sections
110/324(4)/3(5) of the BNS arising out of a quarrel following a minor traffic
accident, in which the injuries were simple, was quashed on settlement by
this Court. It was observed as under:
“8. In the present case, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were
known to each other. A quarrel ensued upon a relatively small
traffic accident, in which the injuries sustained were simple in
nature. The parties have also expressed a desire to put the past
dispute behind them. There does not appear to be any overriding
public interest in keeping the proceedings alive. Applying the tests
laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the
respondent No. 2 has also categorically affirmed the voluntary
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 9 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances,
the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its
continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of
the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily.”
15. Applying the aforesaid principles and considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that continuation
of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. What weighs with the
Court are the following circumstances:
i. The incident arose out of a sudden minor traffic collusion between
two strangers with no pre-meditation or enmity;
ii. The injuries allegedly caused to the respondent no.2 were simple in
nature and he was discharged from the hospital on the very next day;
iii. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents; and
iv. The respondent no.2 has settled the matter out of his own free will and
volition, as stated on affidavit and confirmed before this Court, and is
no longer inclined to support the prosecution, rendering the prospect
of conviction remote and bleak.
16. Accordingly, in terms of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in

Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra), and Ramgopal (supra), as
applied by this Court in Mithilesh Kumar Sharma (supra) and Harsh
Sehrawat (supra), there is no impediment to allowing the present petition.
17. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.51/2026
dated 10.04.2026 under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
registered at PS Chanakyapuri, New Delhi and all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, are quashed.
18. At the same time, considering that considerable resources and judicial
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 10 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34

time have been spent in the matter and the State machinery has been
engaged, the petitioner agrees to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee. Let the said costs be deposited by the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and proof of such
deposit of cost be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.
19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pending
application also stands disposed of.
20. Order dasti .



SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026/r,sd
W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026 Page 11 of 11



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
18:04:34