Delhi High Court Quashes Non-Compoundable Attempt To Commit Culpable Homicide FIR After Traffic Scuffle, Citing Simple Injuries and Voluntary Settlement as Key Legal Factors
Delhi High Court Quashes Section 110 BNS FIR Following Alleged Helmet Assault After Traffic Accident, Finds Settlement and Simple Injuries Justify Relief Under Inherent Jurisdiction
Facts
On 9 April 2026, a motorcyclist allegedly struck a car near a CNG pump on Vinay Marg, New Delhi, and, following an altercation, hit its driver, Ravinder Dahiya, on the head with a helmet. FIR No. 51/2026 was registered at Chanakyapuri Police Station under Section 110 BNS (attempt to commit culpable homicide); CCTV footage identified Pankaj as the motorcyclist. The medical report classified the injuries as simple, and the complainant was discharged the next day. Pankaj obtained regular bail on 23 April 2026. The complainant then executed an affidavit-cum-no-objection certificate dated 28 April 2026, voluntarily settling the dispute and consenting to quashing.
Issues
Whether the Delhi High Court could invoke Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR alleging the non-compoundable offence under Section 110 BNS on the basis of compromise; and whether the incident’s circumstances, medical evidence, absence of antecedents and likelihood of conviction justified exercising inherent jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Pankaj sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. His case rested on an isolated roadside altercation without premeditation or previous enmity, the simple nature of the complainant’s injuries, his clean criminal antecedents and the subsequent voluntary settlement. The complainant’s sworn no-objection recorded that the incident arose from a minor traffic collision, that he wished to end the prosecution, and that the compromise involved no coercion or inducement.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State appeared through counsel and the investigating officer, who identified both parties; the judgment records no separate substantive opposition advanced by the prosecution. Respondent No. 2, Ravinder Dahiya, appeared virtually, affirmed his affidavit and confirmed that he had settled freely and no longer wished to pursue the case. The Court independently considered the public-interest implications of the serious, non-compoundable charge.
Analysis of the Law
Section 110 BNS corresponds to Section 308 IPC and concerns attempt to commit culpable homicide; it is not compoundable. However, Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power, analogous to Section 482 CrPC, to quash proceedings to secure justice or prevent abuse of process. This power is distinct from statutory compounding. Compromise is not by itself decisive: courts must examine the offence’s gravity and social impact, the nature of injuries, intent and evidence, the voluntariness of settlement, the accused’s conduct and whether a conviction remains realistically possible.
Precedent Analysis
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, distinguished inherent quashing from compounding and cautioned against routinely ending heinous prosecutions. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, permitted scrutiny of the actual injuries, weapons and evidence rather than relying solely on a serious section in the FIR. Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, identified societal impact, injury, voluntary settlement and accused conduct as relevant. The Court also followed Mithilesh Kumar Sharma (10 December 2025) and Harsh Sehrawat (28 January 2026), Delhi High Court decisions applying these principles in Section 110 BNS matters.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sachin Datta found that the collision led to a spontaneous altercation between strangers, with no pre-existing hostility or planning. The complainant’s injuries were medically assessed as simple; Pankaj had no criminal antecedents. The complainant’s signed affidavit and personal confirmation before the Court established a voluntary and unequivocal settlement, verified by the investigating officer. With the principal witness unwilling to support the prosecution, the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak. Continuing the case would serve no useful purpose, despite Section 110 BNS being non-compoundable.
Conclusion
The petition was allowed on 28 October 2026. FIR No. 51/2026 dated 10 April 2026, registered at PS Chanakyapuri under Section 110 BNS, and all consequential proceedings were quashed. Given the public resources and judicial time expended, Pankaj agreed to deposit ₹10,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks and file proof within the following four weeks. The ruling is fact-specific and does not make serious non-compoundable offences automatically quashable upon settlement.
Case: Pankaj v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 1670/2026; CRL.M.A. 16746/2026; 2026:DHC:9532
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta
Date: 28 October 2026
Result: FIR and consequential proceedings quashed on voluntary settlement; ₹10,000 costs payable within four weeks; proof due within the next four weeks.
