Petition under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 354/354A IPC arising from a neighbourhood dispute, after the parties settled amicably and the complainant gave a no-objection affidavit. Relying on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~23
SH ROHIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Rajore, Advocate, alongwith petitioner-in-person.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. SI Vikas, PS-Kalyanpuri. Mr. J. S. Rajore, Advocate. Enl. No D-1966/2019, Mob. No. 9540083693 for R-2 with R-2 through VC.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R
% 06.02.2026
Page 1 of 6
CRL.M.C. 7781/2025
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 10/02/2026 at 12:36:35
of respondent No. 2. He undertakes to file his vakalatnama during the course of the day.
Page 2 of 6
CRL.M.C. 7781/2025
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 10/02/2026 at 12:36:35
and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
“ 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,
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Page 3 of 6
CRL.M.C. 7781/2025
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 10/02/2026 at 12:36:35
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. 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.
2 Emphasis supplied.
3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.
Page 4 of 6
CRL.M.C. 7781/2025
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 10/02/2026 at 12:36:35
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
4 Emphasis supplied.
Page 5 of 6
CRL.M.C. 7781/2025
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 10/02/2026 at 12:36:35
formal exercise that would unnecessarily burden the administration of justice and expend public resources.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 6, 2026 ‘Bhupi/JM’/
Page 6 of 6
CRL.M.C. 7781/2025
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 10/02/2026 at 12:36:35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR for non-compoundable offences under Sections 354/354A IPC can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶10
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶10
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sh Rohit
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Respondent No. 2
Prateek Jalan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
