Mr. Sanket Agarwal, Advocate with v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR

CRL.M.C. 8746/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8746/2025, CRL.M.A. 36470/2025 ARYAN RAGHAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanket Agarwal, Advocate with Petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nitish Ojha, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 on VC. SI Vikrant, PS-Amar Colony. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 08.12.2025 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 522/2023 dated 23rd December, 2023, registered under Sections 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Amar Colony, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is based on a complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, alleging that in the intervening night of 22nd-23rd December, 2023, at around 3:15-3:25 AM, while he was travelling with two friends in his car near Kailash Colony Metro Station, a Hyundai Creta being driven at high speed in a rash and dangerous manner hit the rear right side of his vehicle, causing it to spin out of control and 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “IPC” 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 10/12/2025 at 12:17:57 CRL.M.C. 8746/2025 Page 2 of 5 suffer damage. The Complainant alleged that the said Creta thereafter fled the spot after also colliding with two other vehicles, leaving its front number plate and grill at the scene. Upon later obtaining the fallen number plate, its registration number was found to be HR51CF6328, and the registered owner, Manish Raghav, informed that his son, Aryan Raghav, aged 22 years, was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. On these allegations, the subject FIR was registered. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed, whereby the charge under Section 427 IPC was dropped and the Petitioner was only charged with the offence under Section 279 IPC. 3. The Complainant/Respondent No.2 has amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioner and has decided not to pursue the present FIR against him. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 2nd December, 2025, was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. 4. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, the Complainant has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give his no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. 5. The Complainant, who appears before the Court through the Video Conferencing mechanism and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He confirms that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. He further confirms that in terms of the settlement, he has received the entire settlement amount. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the parties jointly seek quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. 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 10/12/2025 at 12:17:57 CRL.M.C. 8746/2025 Page 3 of 5 6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Notably, the offence under Section 279 IPC is non-compoundable. However, it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.4 has held as follows: “11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. 12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent no.1 & 2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an an exercise in futility.” [Emphasis added] 7. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 4 (2012) 10 SCC 303 5 (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 10/12/2025 at 12:17:57 CRL.M.C. 8746/2025 Page 4 of 5 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. 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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 8. Although the offence under Section 279 IPC cannot be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and it touches upon public concerns rather than being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also account for the practical realities of securing a conviction in the present case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where the complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a conviction becomes exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution may 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 10/12/2025 at 12:17:57 CRL.M.C. 8746/2025 Page 5 of 5 not only prove futile, but would also serve no worthwhile public interest. 9. The Complainant has categorically expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed the settlement as voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Given this background, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 10. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and in view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds the present case to be an appropriate one for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to secure the ends of justice. 11. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 522/2023 dated 23rd December, 2023, registered at P.S. Amar Colony, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 12. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioners. Accordingly, all the Petitioners are directed to deposit INR 5,000/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of payment of cost to be deposited with the IO. 13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 8, 2025/nk