In Pankaj v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026, decided on 28 October 2026, the Delhi High Court applied the settled framework for quashing non-compoundable offences on settlement to a thoroughly modern Delhi fact pattern: a motorcycle clips a car near a CNG pump, tempers flare, a helmet becomes a weapon, and an FIR under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — the successor to Section 308 IPC — follows. With the injured man discharged the next day and a voluntary settlement affirmed in court, Justice Sachin Datta held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.
The incident
On the evening of 9 April 2026, near a petrol and CNG pump on Vinay Marg, a motorcycle struck the left side of a car. The exchange that followed escalated in seconds: the complainant alleged that the motorcyclist abused him and struck him on the head with a helmet, knocking him unconscious. An FIR was registered the next day at PS Chanakyapuri, and the rider was identified through CCTV footage. The medico-legal certificate recorded the injuries as simple; the complainant was discharged from hospital the following day. The accused obtained regular bail from the sessions court within two weeks. What remained was the prosecution itself — under Section 110 BNS, an offence punishable as an attempt to commit culpable homicide and not compoundable.
The legal route: inherent power, not compounding
Because Section 110 BNS cannot be compounded, the parties\' settlement had to travel through the High Court\'s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the successor to Section 482 CrPC. The governing principles are those of Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Ramgopal: the power is of wide amplitude but must be exercised carefully; offences with a predominantly civil or private flavour, arising from personal disputes, may be quashed on genuine settlement, while heinous offences and crimes against society stand apart. The question is always whether, with the complainant genuinely reconciled, the realistic prospect of conviction has become so remote that continuing the trial is an abuse of process.
Why this case qualified
On that matrix the Court held that the prospect of conviction had become exceedingly remote and that continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed, subject to Rs 10,000 costs payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee — with the Court careful, as always, to record no conclusive finding on the merits.
Practitioners should note what the judgment does not do: it does not suggest that every Section 110 BNS case settles its way out of court. The provision covers conduct up to the brink of culpable homicide, and where injuries are grievous, weapons are carried to the scene, or the attack is premeditated, Delhi courts routinely refuse settlement-based quashing. The private-quarrel character of the incident is the gateway fact.
The practical sequence for settling parties
For parties who have genuinely reconciled after an incident of this kind, the judgment maps the standard Delhi sequence: reduce the settlement to writing; obtain the complainant\'s affidavit supporting quashing; file a petition under Section 528 BNSS impleading both the State and the complainant; produce the complainant for the court\'s interaction; and be prepared for costs as a condition. Timing matters less than voluntariness — settlements reached before or after chargesheet can both sustain quashing — but the court\'s satisfaction that no pressure operated on the injured party is non-negotiable, and a complainant who wavers in court will usually end the petition.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Section 110 BNS a compoundable offence?
No. Attempt to commit culpable homicide — Section 110 BNS, corresponding to Section 308 IPC — is not compoundable under the scheme that replaced Section 320 CrPC. A settlement therefore cannot end the case by compounding; the only route is the High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to quash the FIR where continuation would be an abuse of process.
When will the High Court quash a non-compoundable offence on settlement?
Following Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Ramgopal, where the offence is predominantly private in character, the settlement is voluntary, and the chance of conviction is remote once the complainant resiles. Offences that are heinous, or against society at large, stand on a different footing. Here the Court stressed the sudden, unpremeditated quarrel between strangers, simple injuries, discharge from hospital the next day, and the petitioner's clean record.
Why did the Court impose costs?
Costs are a routine feature of settlement-based quashing in Delhi: they mark that the criminal process was set in motion and consumed public resources. The petitioner must deposit Rs 10,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks and file proof within four weeks thereafter.
Does the complainant's affidavit alone suffice?
No — the Court requires more than paper. The injured respondent filed an affidavit-cum-no-objection and then personally reaffirmed before the Court that the settlement was voluntary and that he did not wish to pursue the prosecution. Courts routinely interact with the complainant to rule out pressure before quashing.