Kartik Yadav v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC21 May 2026W.P.(CRL)/3446/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing; Section 279 IPC rash or negligent driving; Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 inherent powers; apology tendered and accepted; complainant/driver Raj Kumar deceased; no compensation sought for damaged car; no injuries; cost Rs. 1,000/- payable to DHCLSC within ten days; Police Station Chanakya Puri; Kartik Yadav v. State & Ors.; W.P.(CRL) 3446/2023; Manoj Jain J.; High Court of Delhi; decided 21.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 248/2023 dated 17.11.2023 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri under Section 279 IPC together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, subject to deposit of Rs. 1,000/- with DHCLSC within ten days; pending applications also disposed of in the same terms. ¶¶25

Kartik Yadav Vs State & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 248/2023 dated 17.11.2023 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri for offence under Section 279 IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed.

¶¶8

Court's answer

Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the petitioner's age, his previous clean antecedents, the fact that his apology has been duly accepted by respondent No. 3, and that none received any injuries in the accident, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Exercising the inherent powers vested in the Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

To secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 248/2023 dated 17.11.2023 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri under Section 279 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed subject to the petitioner depositing a total cost of Rs. 1,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within ten days.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J., oral judgment); W.P.(CRL) 3446/2023 with CRL.M.A. 31938/2023, CRL.M.A. 31939/2023 & CRL.M.A. 18625/2025; decided 21.05.2026 — Kartik Yadav sought quashing of FIR No. 248/2023 dated 17.11.2023, P.S. Chanakya Puri, under Section 279 IPC (rash or negligent driving alone; none injured). Respondent No. 3, owner of the stationary car involved in the accident caused by the petitioner, withdrew opposition: the petitioner's apology was accepted, respondent No. 3 sought no compensation for car damage, and the complainant/driver Raj Kumar (respondent No. 2) had expired in the interregnum; the petitioner also withdrew his assertions against respondent No. 3. Noting the petitioner's age (thirties), clean antecedents and absence of injuries, the Court held no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings and, exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, subject to deposit of Rs. 1,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within ten days. Petition and pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶1

$~95

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 21^st May, 2026 + W.P.(CRL) 3446/2023, CRL.M.A. 31938/2023, CRL.M.A. 31939/2023 & CRL.M.A. 18625/2025 KARTIK YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rizwan, Ms. Sachi Chopra and Ms. Jessica Khera, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE & ORS. .....Respondents

¶6

Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Advocate for State/R-1 Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocate for R-3 SI Ritika Dhiwan (P.S. Chanakya Puri)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶8

Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 248/2023 dated 17.11.2023 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri for commission of offence under Section 279 IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It’s a case of rash or negligent driving alone. None received injuries.

¶9

Mr. Piyush Beriwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 undertakes to file his vakalatnama during course of the day.

¶10

Mr. Beriwal submits that it was the car of respondent No. 3 which met with an accident, caused by petitioner herein. He submits that car of the

¶11

W.P.(CRL) 3446/2023 1

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 3.05.2026 12:55:40

¶14

respondent No. 3, at the relevant time, was being driven by his driver Raj Kumar (complainant/respondent No.2) and, when accident had taken place, their such car was stationary. He submits that such driver has, unfortunately, expired in the interregnum. He submits that, as per instructions received from respondent No. 3, he is no longer desirous in pursuing with the aforesaid FIR and would have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed, albeit, for the above reason. He submits that the offence stands revealed and the assertions made in the petition were, totally, unwarranted.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 also submits that an apology was also tendered by the petitioner herein and, keeping in mind the overall facts, and also the unfortunate death of the driver, apology is accepted and, therefore, respondent No. 3 would have ‘ no objection ’ if the FIR in question is quashed. He also states that the respondent No. 3 is not seeking any compensation with respect to the damage caused to his car.

¶16

Petitioner is, reportedly, in his thirties and has no previous involvement.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per instructions, petitioner is not pressing the assertions made by him in context of respondent No. 3 and since his apology has been accepted, he prays for quashing of FIR.

¶18

Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, age of petitioner, his previous clean antecedents and the fact that his apology has been duly accepted by respondent No. 3 and that none received any injuries in the accident in question, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR in question.

¶19

Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

W.P.(CRL) 3446/2023 2

¶22

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 3.05.2026 12:55:40

¶23

Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , it is deemed appropriate to quash both the FIR.

¶24

Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 248/2023 dated 17.11.2023, registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri for commission of offence under Section 279 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed subject to petitioner’s depositing a total cost of Rs. 1,000/- with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within ten days from today.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶26

Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶27

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶28

MAY 21, 2026/ dr/pb

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

W.P.(CRL) 3446/2023 3

¶31

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 3.05.2026 12:55:40

Kartik Yadav v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Yadav v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Kasim Alam and Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jannat Kapoor Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vijay @ Vijender Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Kulbir Singh Uberoi and Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mohd Saeed Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Awaaz Production Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ritika & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sameer @Wajid Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Shaikh Mohammad Sayeed Vs Reshma Bahadur

Harish Chander Vs State NCT of Delhi

Nakul Jain Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rohit Lehra and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.