$~27 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010940482025 + CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 NEERAJ KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhishek Rana and Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. ASI Manvir Singh, P.S. Gokulpuri. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Advocate for R2 alongwith R2 in Court. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 21.08.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 423/2022, dated 10.10.2022, registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections 288/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf the State. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 and her two adult children are also present, and are CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 1 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 identified by their learned counsel and the IO. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of the husband of respondent No. 2. The allegations, as emerging therefrom, are that, while working as a mason at the petitioners’ house on 18.01.2022, the complainant fell and sustained injuries. Petitioner No. 2 took the complainant to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where he remained admitted until 11.02.2022. No chargesheet has been filed in the case to date. 6. I am informed that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature. However, he passed away on 01.01.2024 due to an unrelated cause. A copy of the death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been placed on record.

7. The complainant had pursued a claim for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which came to be adjudicated by the learned Commissioner vide award dated 15.09.2023. However, upon the demise of the complainant, respondent No. 2, being his wife and legal representative, entered into a Compromise-cum-Settlement Deed dated 22.04.2024 with the petitioners, whereby she agreed to amicably and finally settle all her claims against the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Upon receipt of the aforesaid amount, respondent No. 2 expressly waived and relinquished her claim to the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, and agreed to treat the said amount as full and final settlement of her claims against the petitioners. 8. The parties thereafter entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.2025, recording that respondent No. 2 had CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 received the aforesaid settlement amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- in full and final satisfaction of her claims, and had no surviving grievance against the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 further expressed her unequivocal consent to the quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

9. By order dated 07.05.2026, it was noted that the complainant is survived by two adult children. The statement of respondent No. 2 was also recorded, wherein she stated that she had no objection to the compromise and that she had received the entire settled amount. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, no-objection affidavits of the adult children of the deceased have also been placed on record, wherein they have acknowledged the settlement entered into by their mother and stated that they have no further grievance or claim against the petitioners in respect of the subject FIR or the incident in question. 11. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence. 12. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 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. CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 3 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 14. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1, has held as follows:

“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 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.”2

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 Emphasis supplied. CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 The relevant observations in the said decision read 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 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 oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”4 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. 4 Emphasis supplied. CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 15. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of an incident at the premises of the petitioners, which resulted in simple injuries to the complainant, who has since died due to an unrelated cause. The disputes have since been settled. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that respondent No. 2 – wife of the deceased has categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. The children of the deceased have also agreed to the said settlement. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in a conviction, and their continuation would be an empty formality, thereby adding to the burden on the justice system and unnecessarily consuming public resources.

16. As noted above, the settlement amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- has been received by respondent No. 2. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 423/2022, dated 10.10.2022, registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, District North-East, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 21, 2026 ‘pv’/MK/ CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05

$~27 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010940482025 + CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 NEERAJ KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhishek Rana and Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. ASI Manvir Singh, P.S. Gokulpuri. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Advocate for R2 alongwith R2 in Court. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 21.08.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 423/2022, dated 10.10.2022, registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, District North-East, Delhi, under Sections 288/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf the State. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 and her two adult children are also present, and are CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 1 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 identified by their learned counsel and the IO. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 5. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of the husband of respondent No. 2. The allegations, as emerging therefrom, are that, while working as a mason at the petitioners’ house on 18.01.2022, the complainant fell and sustained injuries. Petitioner No. 2 took the complainant to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where he remained admitted until 11.02.2022. No chargesheet has been filed in the case to date. 6. I am informed that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature. However, he passed away on 01.01.2024 due to an unrelated cause. A copy of the death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been placed on record.

7. The complainant had pursued a claim for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which came to be adjudicated by the learned Commissioner vide award dated 15.09.2023. However, upon the demise of the complainant, respondent No. 2, being his wife and legal representative, entered into a Compromise-cum-Settlement Deed dated 22.04.2024 with the petitioners, whereby she agreed to amicably and finally settle all her claims against the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Upon receipt of the aforesaid amount, respondent No. 2 expressly waived and relinquished her claim to the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, and agreed to treat the said amount as full and final settlement of her claims against the petitioners. 8. The parties thereafter entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.2025, recording that respondent No. 2 had CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 received the aforesaid settlement amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- in full and final satisfaction of her claims, and had no surviving grievance against the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 further expressed her unequivocal consent to the quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

9. By order dated 07.05.2026, it was noted that the complainant is survived by two adult children. The statement of respondent No. 2 was also recorded, wherein she stated that she had no objection to the compromise and that she had received the entire settled amount. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, no-objection affidavits of the adult children of the deceased have also been placed on record, wherein they have acknowledged the settlement entered into by their mother and stated that they have no further grievance or claim against the petitioners in respect of the subject FIR or the incident in question. 11. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence. 12. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 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. CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 3 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 14. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1, has held as follows:

“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 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.”2

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 Emphasis supplied. CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 The relevant observations in the said decision read 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 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 oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”4 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466. 4 Emphasis supplied. CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05 15. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of an incident at the premises of the petitioners, which resulted in simple injuries to the complainant, who has since died due to an unrelated cause. The disputes have since been settled. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that respondent No. 2 – wife of the deceased has categorically affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. The children of the deceased have also agreed to the said settlement. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in a conviction, and their continuation would be an empty formality, thereby adding to the burden on the justice system and unnecessarily consuming public resources.

16. As noted above, the settlement amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- has been received by respondent No. 2. There is, therefore, no impediment to the grant of the relief sought. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 423/2022, dated 10.10.2022, registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, District North-East, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 18. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 19. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 21, 2026 ‘pv’/MK/ CRL.M.C. 8405/2025 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:20:05