The Delhi High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed under attempt-to-murder and Arms Act provisions against a woman and three others, after observing that the injured person sustained only simple injuries and all parties had amicably resolved the dispute through a formal settlement. The ruling, delivered on 5 October 2026, underscores the court's position that the mere invocation of serious statutory provisions cannot override factual circumstances when parties voluntarily settle.

Background: The FIR and Allegations

The FIR was registered on 2 June 2024 at Palam Village police station under Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case stemmed from a dispute over a monetary transaction between the parties.

According to the FIR, the petitioners had visited the complainant's residence in connection with the financial dispute, during which an altercation ensued. It was alleged that petitioner no. 1 summoned her bodyguard — petitioner no. 2 — who fired shots from a firearm, one of which reportedly struck respondent Arshad Khan. The FIR also alleged criminal threats and damage to property.

What the Court Found

A single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., invoking the High Court's inherent powers. Crucially, the court noted that the medical examination of the injured described the wound as a 'simple blunt' injury, and that the firearm used in the incident had been verified to be a licensed weapon.

Justice Bansal observed that 'the mere use of the expression Section 307 IPC or the invocation of Section 307 in the criminal proceedings cannot be determinative' and that courts must examine the actual factual matrix — including the nature of the injury and the weapon involved — before deciding such petitions.

Settlement and Consent

The petitioners submitted that all parties had settled their dispute through a memorandum of understanding dated 18 July 2024, without any coercion or undue pressure. Both sides confirmed in open court that they were neighbours, no outstanding dispute remained, and the complainant and the injured Arshad Khan unequivocally stated they did not wish to pursue the matter further.

The prosecution had opposed the quashing plea, arguing the alleged offence was serious in nature. However, the court also noted that the charge sheet had only recently been filed and the trial had yet to commence, lending additional weight to the case for quashing at an early stage.

Legal Precedent and Reasoning

Citing multiple Supreme Court judgments, Justice Bansal reiterated that High Courts retain inherent jurisdiction to quash even non-compoundable offences based on a genuine compromise, though such power must be exercised sparingly and with caution. The court held that the combination of a minor injury, a licensed firearm, a voluntary pre-trial settlement, and the absence of any lingering dispute placed this case squarely within permissible quashing territory.

The court further observed that 'no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings of the present FIR and it would be an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer.'

Order and Compliance

The Delhi High Court accordingly quashed the FIR registered at Palam Village police station and all proceedings arising from it. As a condition, petitioners no. 1 to 4 were each directed to pay costs of ₹25,000 to the Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group. A compliance report is to be filed before the registry within four weeks.

The ruling adds to a growing body of High Court decisions that caution trial courts against mechanically proceeding with serious-section FIRs when the underlying facts reveal minor injuries and genuine out-of-court settlements.