Quashed¶25

Arpit Jain v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC18 Mar 2026CRL.M.C./2015/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on settlement between parties; CRL.M.C. 2015/2026, Delhi High Court, decided 18.03.2026; section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; sections 279, 337, 338 Indian Penal Code 1860; P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; MACT compensation Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2.75 lacs; costs of Rs. 20,000/- to Very Special Arts India; exercise in futility; peace and harmony between parties; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition under section 528 BNSS 2023 allowed and disposed of; FIR No. 0052/2023 dated 14.04.2023 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed/closed; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- costs to 'Very Special Arts India' within 04 weeks with proof of payment within 01 week thereafter; pending applications disposed of. ¶25

Arpit Jain Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether case FIR No. 0052/2023 dated 14.04.2023 registered under sections 279/337 IPC (with section 338 IPC added by chargesheet dated 27.07.2023) at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, should be quashed in light of the settlement between the contesting parties.

¶11

Court's answer

In line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, and in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, FIR No. 0052/2023 dated 14.04.2023 registered under sections 279/337 IPC at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi is quashed and all proceedings arising therefrom stand closed.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

In light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶19

Key takeaways

While allowing the petition, the petitioner shall, by way of atonement, pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- to 'Very Special Arts India' within 04 weeks; proof of payment is to be placed on record within 01 week thereafter, and the Registry is directed to verify compliance and bring any default to the notice of the court.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.) in CRL.M.C. 2015/2026, decided 18.03.2026: Petition under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 0052/2023 dated 14.04.2023, registered under sections 279/337 IPC at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi (offence under section 338 IPC added vide chargesheet dated 27.07.2023), allowed on the basis of settlement between the contesting parties. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who had received Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2.75 lacs respectively in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceedings plus additional compensation from the petitioner, stated they did not wish to pursue the FIR; the State (through learned APP Mr. Shoaib Haider) raised no objection. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court held that continuing the FIR would be an exercise in futility and not conducive to peace and harmony between the parties. FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed/closed. Petitioner directed, by way of atonement, to pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- to 'Very Special Arts India' within 04 weeks, with proof of payment within 01 week thereafter; Registry to verify compliance. Petition and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~103

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2015/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8295/2026

¶4

ARPIT JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Counsel (appearance not given). Petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State with SI Yashwant, P.S.; Tughlak Road. Respondents in-person.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 18.03.2026

¶11

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No. 0052/2023 dated 14.04.2023 registered under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Tughlak Road, New Delhi. Consequent upon completion of investigation, the offence under section 338 of the IPC was added vidé chargesheet dated 27.07.2023.

¶12

The petition is also supported by affidavits of the petitioner and of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, alongwith proofs of their IDs.

¶13

The contesting parties are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 2015/2026 Page 1 of 3

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 08/04/2026 at 11:53:03

¶17

The court has interacted with respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No.2 has received Rs. 25,000/- and respondent No.3 has received Rs. 2.75 lacs in the proceedings before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; and the respondents have also been paid some compensation additional amount by the petitioner. They have also stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings in the subject FIR.

¶18

Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

¶19

In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶20

While allowing the petition however, t his court considers it appropriate, that by way of atonement, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the ' Very Special Arts India ', Plot No. 3 Institutional Area, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, within 04 weeks.

¶21

Proof of payment of costs be placed on record within 01 week thereafter.

¶22

CRL.M.C. 2015/2026 Page 2 of 3

¶23

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 08/04/2026 at 11:53:03

¶24

The Registry is directed to verify compliance; and to bring to the notice of this court any default in respect thereof.

¶25

Accordingly, case FIR No. 0052/2023 dated 14.04.2023 registered under sections 279/337 of the IPC at P.S.: Tughlak Road, New Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶26

Petition stands disposed-of.

¶27

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶28

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶29

MARCH 18, 2026 V.Rawat

¶30

CRL.M.C. 2015/2026 Page 3 of 3

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 08/04/2026 at 11:53:03

Arpit Jain v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Jain v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Pushpender Singh and Others Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Simran Sodhi & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Gajraj Gupta Vs State through SHO Ps Amar Colony

Inderjeet and Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pradeep Sharma Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Agrim Kumar Dash Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.