Shila Nand Jha & Anr. vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~39
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 02.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010060262026
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026
+
SHILA NAND JHA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate along
with petitioners.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
along with Mr. Mohd. Naved and Mr.
Mayank Chaudhary, Advocates.
Mr. Pervez Alam, Mr. Ahazam Noor,
Advs. for R-2 along with R-2 in
person.
SI Ashish Kumar, PS Kalindi Kunj.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )


1. The petitioners, via the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( pari materia to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seek quashing of FIR No. 699/2025,
dated 06.12.2025, registered at P.S. Kalandi Kunj, South-East (Delhi), under
Sections 290/106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of Settlement
Deed, dated 29.12.2025, entered into between the parties. The same has
been appended as Annexure P-2 to the present petition.
2. It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased (respondent no. 2’s husband),
along with the complainant, was working at A-925, Gali No. 11, Khadda

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:27:38
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026 Page 1 of 8

Colony, Jaitpur Extension Part-2, Delhi. This property, owned by petitioner
no. 1, was being demolished and renovated through petitioner no. 2
(contractor). On 16.12.2025, at around 5:00 PM, debris fell on the deceased
while he was demolishing the property. He was later declared dead at Apollo
Hospital, Sarita Vihar. Subsequently, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the
statement of a co-worker.
3. By way of the aforesaid Settlement Deed, executed under the aegis of
the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the petitioners
agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. Out of the same, Rs. 1,25,000 was
payable to respondent no. 2 and Rs.1,25,000 by way of Fixed Deposits
(FDs) in the name of each of the three children of the deceased and
respondent no. 2. Clause K(2) of the Settlement Agreement reads as follows:

4. On 21.09.2026, this Court found the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to
be inadequate and asked the petitioners to ascertain whether they can pay at

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:27:38
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026 Page 2 of 8

least an amount of Rs. 7,50,000.
5. Today, the petitioners have brought a bank draft for Rs. 2,50,000,

payable to respondent no. 2. The same has been handed over to the
respondent no. 2 during the course of the hearing. This is in addition to the
amount mentioned in the aforesaid settlement agreement.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident was an
accident, due to inadvertent and unforeseen circumstances beyond the
control of the petitioners.
7. Respondent no. 2 is present in Court today. She acknowledges receipt
of the total amount of Rs. 7,50,000, viz. , Rs. 5,00,000 in terms of the
aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Agreement and the
bank draft of Rs. 2,50,000 handed over by the petitioners during the course
of proceedings today.
8. No Objection Certificate (NOC) has been filed by respondent no. 2,
which reads as follows:


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:27:38
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026 Page 3 of 8

9. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 have been duly identified by the

concerned Investigating Officer (IO).
10. The Court takes into consideration that the allegations of failure to
provide safety during demolition involve no mala fide intention, and that the
legal heirs of the victim have settled the matter through mediation under the
aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Furthermore, the concern expressed by this Court regarding the adequacy of
the compensation has also been addressed.
11. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , a three-Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court summarised the position regarding the
compromise quashing of FIR:
“ 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. … 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.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:27:38
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026 Page 4 of 8

*
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
.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. The principles were thereafter crystallised in Narinder Singh v. State
of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 . In paragraph 29, the Supreme Court observed
as under:
“ 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.
While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as
to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
29.5.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:27:38
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026 Page 5 of 8

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. 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.
”
(emphasis supplied)
14. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Suraj v. State of NCT of Delhi ,
2026:DHC:5831 , on 20.07.2026, quashed an FIR in a similar context and
offences, on the following terms:
“ 11. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties,
continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful
purpose. In any case, even the LRs of the deceased do not wish to
press any charges against the petitioners. ”
15. It is also worth noting that the FIR registered under Sections 290/106

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:27:38
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026 Page 6 of 8

of the BNS was quashed by this Court in somewhat identical circumstances,
on the basis of the Settlement Agreement:
a. Arpit Jain v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi , 2026:DHC:8812
( 06.10.2026 ): The employee died of electric
shock/electrocution;
b. Vikram Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi , 2026:DHC:7258
( 25.08.2026 ): The plaster worker, employed with the petitioner,
died of electric shock/electrocution; and
c. Vikas Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi , 2025:DHC:10059
( 15.11.2025 ): The labourer succumbed to the injuries sustained
due to the fall of debris and the lack of safety equipment.
16. In the present case, this Court has taken note of the accidental nature
of the incident, as well as the voluntary settlement with all the legal heirs
(the children being represented by their mother as their natural guardian, i.e. ,
respondent no. 2).
17. The payment of the compensation has also been taken note of.
18. In totality of the circumstances, it would be an exercise in futility to
subject the parties to a long-term trial.
19. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed; FIR No. 699/2025, dated
06.12.2025, registered at P.S. Kalandi Kunj, South-East (Delhi), under
Sections 290/106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, stand quashed.
20. To safeguard the interests of the three minor children of the deceased,
it is directed that the amount in favour of each child, i.e. , Rs. 1,25,000, be
kept as Fixed Deposit (FD) with a nationalised bank until each child attains

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:27:38
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026 Page 7 of 8

maturity. The interest from these FDs shall be paid to respondent no. 2, the
natural guardian/mother, solely for the benefit of the minor children. There
shall be no premature withdrawal of the FD/s without leave of the competent
Court.
21. The present petition, along with pending application/s, if any, is
disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/r,vk


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:27:38
CRL.M.C. 1382/2026 Page 8 of 8