$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010032292026 + W.P.(CRL) 355/2026 VIKAS DAHIYA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Gaurav, Ms. Juhi Chauhan and Mr. Vaibhav, Advocates. Mr. Rajesh Dhaiya, Advocate. versus GOVT OF STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Ms. Sonia Malhotra and Ms. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates. SI Annu. Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Ms. Sonia Malhotra and Ms. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates for the complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’], seeking quashing of FIR No. 672/2024, registered at Police Station Narela, Delhi dated 13.10.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 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 17/09/2026 at 12:13:28 [‘BNS’], on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. The FIR in question arose out of a motor accident in which the second respondent, Master Kartik, then aged about four years, sustained injuries. 3. Mr. Umesh Mukhiya, the natural guardian of the second respondent, has appeared before the Court. 4. A compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded to the respondents by the Lok Adalat, vide award dated 10.01.2026. Additionally, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid by the petitioners in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding cum Settlement Deed dated 22.01.2026. 5. This Court, by its order dated 06.02.2026, had directed certain compliances, which have since been carried out. 6. On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the quashing of the FIR in question, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. Notwithstanding that certain offences are classified as non-compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS), may quash such proceedings on account of a settlement between the parties. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,1 the Supreme Court recognised that such a course serves the ends of justice by bringing the litigation to an end and preventing its needless continuation, and by acknowledging that, following the compromise, the likelihood of conviction becomes remote and bleak.

8. The conditions and pre-requisites for such quashing were elaborated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,2 wherein it was, inter alia, observed that quashing on the basis of a settlement may be considered where there is 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466. 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 17/09/2026 at 12:13:28 hardly any likelihood of conviction in view of the compromise, particularly in disputes that are predominantly civil in nature; where the refusal to quash would defeat the ends of justice, or render the continuation of the proceedings unfair, unjust or an abuse of the process of the Court; and having due regard to the timing of the compromise, such quashing being ordinarily considered at the stage of investigation or early trial. 9. The aforesaid proposition was refined in Vijay Kumar Kela v. CBI,3 clarifying that it is ultimately the facts and circumstances of each case that determine the compoundability of the proceedings, that no straight-jacket formula can be prescribed, and that, before exercising its powers, the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

10. In view of the aforesaid, and bearing in mind the nature of the dispute, the settlement arrived at between the parties, the compliances having been duly carried out, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the FIR No. 672/2024, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. 11. The petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 P/Adi 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1003. 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 17/09/2026 at 12:13:28

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010032292026 + W.P.(CRL) 355/2026 VIKAS DAHIYA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Gaurav, Ms. Juhi Chauhan and Mr. Vaibhav, Advocates. Mr. Rajesh Dhaiya, Advocate. versus GOVT OF STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Ms. Sonia Malhotra and Ms. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates. SI Annu. Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Ms. Sonia Malhotra and Ms. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates for the complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’], seeking quashing of FIR No. 672/2024, registered at Police Station Narela, Delhi dated 13.10.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 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 17/09/2026 at 12:13:28 [‘BNS’], on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. The FIR in question arose out of a motor accident in which the second respondent, Master Kartik, then aged about four years, sustained injuries. 3. Mr. Umesh Mukhiya, the natural guardian of the second respondent, has appeared before the Court. 4. A compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded to the respondents by the Lok Adalat, vide award dated 10.01.2026. Additionally, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid by the petitioners in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding cum Settlement Deed dated 22.01.2026. 5. This Court, by its order dated 06.02.2026, had directed certain compliances, which have since been carried out. 6. On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the quashing of the FIR in question, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. Notwithstanding that certain offences are classified as non-compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS), may quash such proceedings on account of a settlement between the parties. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,1 the Supreme Court recognised that such a course serves the ends of justice by bringing the litigation to an end and preventing its needless continuation, and by acknowledging that, following the compromise, the likelihood of conviction becomes remote and bleak.

8. The conditions and pre-requisites for such quashing were elaborated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,2 wherein it was, inter alia, observed that quashing on the basis of a settlement may be considered where there is 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466. 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 17/09/2026 at 12:13:28 hardly any likelihood of conviction in view of the compromise, particularly in disputes that are predominantly civil in nature; where the refusal to quash would defeat the ends of justice, or render the continuation of the proceedings unfair, unjust or an abuse of the process of the Court; and having due regard to the timing of the compromise, such quashing being ordinarily considered at the stage of investigation or early trial. 9. The aforesaid proposition was refined in Vijay Kumar Kela v. CBI,3 clarifying that it is ultimately the facts and circumstances of each case that determine the compoundability of the proceedings, that no straight-jacket formula can be prescribed, and that, before exercising its powers, the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

10. In view of the aforesaid, and bearing in mind the nature of the dispute, the settlement arrived at between the parties, the compliances having been duly carried out, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the FIR No. 672/2024, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. 11. The petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 P/Adi 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1003. 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 17/09/2026 at 12:13:28