Quashed¶34

Ajay Porus and Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2026CRL.M.C./395/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on mutual settlement/compromise; section 528 BNSS; sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC; FIR No. 0008/2015 P.S. Tilak Marg New Delhi; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal compensation split 60:40 (clause 2.1); condonation of 11 days re-filing delay; exemption application; Delhi High Court CRL.M.C. 395/2026; decision date 16.01.2026; Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani; Ajay Porus v. State of NCT of Delhi.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of case FIR No. 0008/2015 dated 06.01.2015 (sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC, P.S.: Tilak Marg, New Delhi) and closure of all proceedings arising therefrom; petition stands disposed of; parties bound by Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 29.09.2025; pending applications disposed of; 11 days' re-filing delay condoned. ¶34

Ajay Porus and Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the subject FIR (No. 0008/2015) and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed in light of the Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 29.09.2025 between the petitioners and respondent No.2. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

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; following the law laid down in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom were fit to be quashed.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Case FIR No. 0008/2015 dated 06.01.2015 registered under sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC at P.S.: Tilak Marg, New Delhi is quashed; all proceedings arising therefrom stand closed.

¶34

Key takeaways

All the parties shall remain bound by the terms of the Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 29.09.2025.ratio¶35
The about 11 days' delay in re-filing the petition is condoned and CRL.M.A. 1478/2026 is allowed and disposed of, for reasons stated in the affidavit-supported application.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.; order dated 16.01.2026) in CRL.M.C. 395/2026 under section 528 BNSS quashed FIR No. 0008/2015 dated 06.01.2015 registered under sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC at P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi, on the basis of a Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 29.09.2025 between the petitioners and respondent No.2, who appeared and confirmed the settlement (respondent No.2 via video-conferencing from Australia). Relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court held that continuance of proceedings after settlement would be an exercise in futility and not conducive to peace and harmony; the learned APP confirmed the State had no objection. All parties remain bound by the settlement, including clause 2.1 entitling respondent No.2 to 60% and petitioner No.1 to 40% of compensation awarded in proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. About 11 days' delay in re-filing was condoned; petition and pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 395/2026

¶4

AJAY PORUS AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Counsel (appearance not given). Petitioners in-person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. SI Anita, PS- Tilak Marg. Mr. N.K. Chauhan, Advocate for R-2 via video-conferencing. Respondent No.2 in-person via videoconferencing.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R

¶8

% 16.01.2026

¶9

CRL.M.A. 1477/2026 (exemption)

¶10

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

¶12

The application stands disposed-of.

¶13

CRL.M.A. 1478/2026 (condonation of 11 days’ delay in re-filing )

¶14

By way of the present application filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), the applicants/petitioners seek condonation of about 11 days’ delay in refiling the present petition.

¶15

For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the delay is condoned.

¶16

The application is allowed and disposed-of.

¶17

CRL.M.C. 395/2026

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 22/01/2026 at 12:37:54

¶21

CRL.M.C. 395/2026

¶22

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 BNSS, the petitioners seek quashing of case FIR No. 0008/2015 dated 06.01.2015 registered under sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Tilak Marg, New Delhi.

¶23

The petition is premised on Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 29.09.2025, whereby the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have resolved the matter amicably.

¶24

The petition is also supported by affidavits of the petitioners and of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs.

¶25

The petitioners are present in court; and respondent No.2, has joined the proceedings via video-conferencing from Australia. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶26

One of the elements of the settlement entered into between the parties is that upon conclusion of the claim proceedings pending before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, respondent No.2 would be entitled to receive 60% of the compensation awarded and petitioner No. 1 would be entitled to receive 40% of that compensation. This is recorded in clause 2.1 of the settlement agreement.

¶27

The court has interacted with respondent No.2, as also with the petitioners, who have confirmed that they have now resolved the matter and a Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 29.09.2025 has been signed by them closing all issues amicably. Parties now wish to live in peace and harmony going forward.

¶28

CRL.M.C. 395/2026

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 22/01/2026 at 12:37:54

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

Accordingly, case FIR No. 0008/2015 dated 06.01.2015 registered under sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC at P.S.: Tilak Marg, New Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶35

All the parties shall remain bound by the terms of Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 29.09.2025.

¶36

Petition stands disposed-of.

¶37

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

¶38

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶39

JANUARY 16, 2026 V.Rawat

¶40

CRL.M.C. 395/2026

¶41

Page 3 of 3

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 22/01/2026 at 12:37:54

Ajay Porus and Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Porus and Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

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

Bharat Sharma Vs Divya Sharma & Anr.

Zaheer Ahmed and Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sawran Singh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Mukesh Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mohd Taslim Vs Central Bureau Investigation and Ors.

Manshi & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.