Sumit Phogat And Others vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) Thr. And Anr.

$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 14 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010498212026
+ CRL.M.C. 7795/2026 & CRL.M.A. 32480/2026
SUMIT PHOGAT AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Somvir Singh Deswal with
Mr. Abhishek Deswal and Mr.
Somvir Khatri, Advocates.
(M): 9313060905
Email:
[email protected]
versus
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) THR. AND ANR......Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP with
Mr. Siddharth Shankar Jha and Ms.
Kalpana Jha, Advocates for the
State.
(M): 9810442918
9968257999
Email: [email protected]
Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate for
respondent no. 2 with respondent no.
2 through VC.
(M): 7082348017
Email:
[email protected]
SI Randeep, PS North Rohini.
(M): 9654711954
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 1 of 8

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking quashing of the First
th
Information Report (“FIR”), being FIR No. 346/2025 , dated 15 May, 2025,
registered at Police Station (“PS”) North Rohini, Delhi, under Sections
191(3)/126(2)/324(4)/76/79/351(2)/61(2)/109(1)/118(2)/190 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 Public Prosecutor (“APP”)
for the State as well as by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
4. The petitioners are present in Court and respondent no. 2 is present in
Court through Video Conferencing (“VC”). They are identified by their
respective counsels as well as the concerned Investigating Officer (“IO”) who
is also present in 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 15 May, 2025, pursuant
to the statement made by respondent no. 2, i.e., the complainant, wherein, it
has been stated that the complainant’s son, i.e., Sh. Aman was married to Smt.
st
Sanju Phougat on 01 July, 2021.
6.2. Owing to a marital discord, Sh. Aman had filed for divorce, and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 2 of 8

parties had also entered into a community settlement, with intervention of the
Society.
th
6.3. On 14 May, 2025, the complainant was beaten and hurled abuses by
Smt. Sanju’s brother, i.e., Sh. Sumit Phougat along with 08 – 10 boys, with
iron rods and sticks. Even the cars belonging to the complainant’s family were
damaged. The complainant was prevented from entering her home.
6.4. Due to the scuffle and beating, the complainant had lost consciousness
and she only regained consciousness at the gate of the Dr. Baba Saheb
Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi.
6.5. Subsequently, a Chargesheet came to be filed against the petitioners by
the Investigating Officer (“IO”) under Sections
191(3)/126(2)/324(4)/76/79/351(2)/61(2)/109(1)/118(2)/190 of the BNS.
6.6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved
th
all their disputes vide Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) dated 15
September, 2026, whereby, the parties agreed to cooperate in quashing the
FIR in question.
7. Learned counsels appearing for the parties jointly submit that they have
settled the dispute and do not wish to pursue the matter any further.
8. This Court has interacted with respondent no. 2, who submits that since
the matter has already been settled at various levels and her son has already
th
obtained a decree of divorce on 28 November, 2025 from the sister/daughter
of the petitioners, she does not wish to pursue the present matter any further.
9. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the FIR in
question.
10. Learned APP for the State submits that though the State has no
objection for allowing the present petition, however, in view of the conduct
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 3 of 8

of the petitioners qua respondent no. 2, cost ought to be imposed.
11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in view of the
categorical statement made by the respondent no. 2, this Court finds no
impediment in allowing the present petition.
12. 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
th
non-compoundable, has been resolved by way of the MOU dated 15
September, 2026.
13. 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 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.
14. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 4 of 8

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 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)
15. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 5 of 8

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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 6 of 8

oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused
to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. It is to be noted that this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Versus
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)
th
17. Accordingly, the FIR No. 346/2025 , dated 15 May, 2025, registered
at PS North Rohini, Delhi, under Sections
191(3)/126(2)/324(4)/76/79/351(2)/61(2)/109(1)/118(2)/190 of the BNS, and
all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
18. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the petitioners are directed to deposit, jointly/severally, cost of Rs. 50,000/-
with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (“DHCLSC”), within a
period of two weeks, from today.
19. The relevant bank account details of the DHCLSC are as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 7 of 8

Name: Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
A/c No: 15530110008386
Bank: UCO BANK
Branch: DELHI HIGH COURT
IFSC: UCBA0001553
20. The proof of the payment of the said cost shall be filed before this Court
as well as the concerned IO, within one week of payment of cost.
21. The present petition along with the pending application is accordingly
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026
c
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 8 of 8