Mohit Mudgal & Ors. vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr

$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 14 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010216672026
+ CRL.M.C. 3764/2026 & CRL.M.A. 15287/2026
MOHIT MUDGAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kavita Jha, Advocate with
petitioners in person.
(M): 8920269201
Email: [email protected]
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the
State.
(M): 9810442918
Email:
[email protected]
Mr. Rambir Singh with Ms. Versha
Sagar and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gaur,
Advocates for respondent no. 2 with
respondent no. 2 in person.
(M): 9555377734
Email: [email protected]
SI Chetan Panwar, PS Chhawla
ASI Mangtu Ram, PS Dwarka, Sector
23
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 1 of 6

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking quashing of the First
th
Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 09/2026 dated 06 January, 2026,
registered at Police Station (“PS”) Chhawla, Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections
118(1)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the
ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (“APP”) appearing for the State, i.e., respondent no. 1, as well as
by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
3. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 are present before this Court, and
are duly identified by their respective counsels as well as the IO, who is also
present before this Court.
4. The captioned petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the
parties.
5. As per the material on record, the following facts have been culled out:
th
5.1. On 05 January, 2025, at around 01:00 PM, respondent no. 2 was
undertaking accounting work in his office. When he raised the issue of alleged
accounting fraud with petitioner nos. 2 and 3, a fight broke out, which led to
a scuffle.
5.2. It is alleged that petitioner no. 2 then brandished a knife at respondent
no. 2. When respondent no. 2 attempted to escape, his hands were held by
petitioner no. 1, i.e., the brother of petitioner no. 2.
5.3. Thereafter, petitioner no. 2 allegedly attacked respondent no. 2 with the
knife at the instance of his father, i.e., petitioner no. 3, causing bleeding from
the neck of respondent no. 2.
5.4. Upon hearing respondent no. 2 shouting, the father of respondent no. 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 2 of 6

and a few other persons arrived at the spot, following which all three
petitioners fled.
5.5. The father of respondent no. 2 subsequently called the police and took
respondent no. 2 to the hospital for treatment.
6. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 jointly submit that they have now
th
settled the matter and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 15
January, 2026, wherein the parties have agreed to resolve all their claims
against each other, and respondent no. 2 agreed to cooperate in quashing the
present FIR.
7. This Court has interacted with respondent no. 2, who submits that he
has settled the matter and does not wish to pursue the matter any further.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the fact that the nature
of the injury was simple, the petitioners ought to be levied with costs.
Otherwise, he has no serious objection to the allowing of the present petition.
9. It was well settled that High Courts exercising their inherent powers
under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC,
may quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, if the
concerned parties have arrived at a compromise, and particularly when no
overarching public interest is adversely affected by quashing the same. The
ultimate guiding factors in such cases must be to secure the ends of justice
and prevent the abuse of the process of law.
10. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the case of Gian Singh Versus
State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein the Supreme
Court has held as under:
“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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 3 of 6

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
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)
11. Further, in Narinder Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and
Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Supreme Court has laid down the following
guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties
and quashing criminal proceedings:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 4 of 6

“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:
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 5 of 6

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)
12. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, and
considering the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement and that
respondent no. 2 does not wish to pursue the matter any further, it is directed
th
that FIR No. 09/2026 dated 06 January, 2026, registered at PS Chhawla,
Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 118(1)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, along with the
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.
13. However, considering the nature of the charges against the petitioners,
it is directed that the petitioners shall pay a cost in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- to
the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (“DHCLSC”).
14. 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
15. The aforesaid cost shall be paid, within a period of two weeks, from
today.
16. The proof of payment of the cost shall be filed before this Court, as well
as with the IO, within a period of one week after deposit of the amount.
17. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition, along with the
pending application, is accordingly disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026
c
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:15.10.2026
21:14:18
Page 6 of 6