The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR for attempt to murder and Arms Act offences after the parties settled their dispute, directing the four petitioners to pay Rs 25,000 each to an environmental research and action group.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, along with all consequential proceedings, on the strength of a settlement between the parties, and has directed the four petitioners to pay Rs 25,000 each to the Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group [Priya Sahani @ Pooja & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.].
Justice Amit Bansal allowed the petition, which invoked the High Court‘s powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations in the FIR were never tested at trial, and the Court expressed no view on their merits.
Background
FIR No. 0338/2024 was registered on June 2, 2024 at Police Station Palam Village. According to the prosecution, a monetary dispute escalated when the accused visited the complainant’s residence, and during the confrontation a bodyguard of one of the accused allegedly discharged a licensed firearm, injuring the complainant. Allegations of threats and damage to property were also made.
The parties, who are neighbours, executed a settlement deed on July 18, 2024, recording that they had settled their disputes “without any coercion or undue pressure” and that no dispute remained. The petitioners then approached the High Court for quashing.
Section 307 IPC is not a bar to quashing
Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, Justice Bansal accepted that offences under Section 307 IPC fall in the category of serious offences, but held that the provision does not by itself shut out a quashing petition based on a settlement. The Court said:
“The mere invocation of Section 307 of IPC could not, by itself, prevent the High Court from examining whether criminal proceedings could be quashed on the basis of a settlement.”
The High Court weighed the nature of the injury, the weapon, the likelihood of conviction and the stage at which the settlement was reached. It noted that the medico-legal certificate classified the injury as “simple blunt”, that the firearm was licensed, that the parties were known to each other, and that the settlement came at an early stage, before the trial began.
Jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS
On that footing, the Court concluded:
“This Court is of the view that the present case falls within the category where the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised.”
Directions
The High Court quashed FIR No. 0338/2024 and all proceedings arising from it. It directed each of the four petitioners to pay Rs 25,000 to the Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group, New Delhi, and to file a compliance report with the Registry within four weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Why The Delhi High Court Order Matters
The order applies the settled test for quashing serious offences on a compromise: the label of the offence is not decisive, and the court looks at the injury, the weapon, the relationship between the parties and the stage of the case. Here those factors, together with the fact that the firearm was licensed, led the Court to hold that continuing the prosecution was not warranted.
The payment of Rs 25,000 by each petitioner to an environmental group, with a compliance report to follow, is a condition attached to the quashing. The order is specific to its facts and does not decide the allegations in the FIR.
Case Title: Priya Sahani @ Pooja & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. [W.P.(CRL) 4076/2024]
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioners; Rupali Bandhopadhya, Additional Standing Counsel, with Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate, for the State