$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 9592/2024 RAKESH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate along with petitioners in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State with SI Tarun Khatri, PS Nihal Vihar Respondent no. 2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 14.01.2025 CRL. M.A. 36811/2024 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL. M.A. 36812/2024 (under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the petition) 3. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Delay of 46 days in re-filing the petition is condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 9592/2024 5. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 175/2013 under Sections 448/420/468/471/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi along with all other proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the 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 24/01/2025 at 15:58:46 parties have arrived at a settlement. 6. Issue notice. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State accepts notice and the respondent no. 2 (complainant) appearing in person also accepts notice. 7. Learned APP further submits that some cost may be imposed on the petitioners as considerable time and effort has been spent on the investigation and judicial time has also been wasted. 8. The petitioners and the respondent no. 2 (complainant) are present in Court and they have been identified by the I.O/ SI Tarun Khatri, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi. 9. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.04.2013 accused got into illegal possession of the complainant’s property, which led to the registration of the aforesaid FIR. 10. Mr. Mahipal Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the present FIR, six persons were arrayed as accused, however, three accused persons have already passed away. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by the remaining three accused persons. The factum of death of three accused persons is also affirmed by the learned APP, on instructions from the IO, who is present in Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement and it has been agreed that the respondent no. 2 will cooperate with the petitioners for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 12. Respondent no. 2 who is present in Court, on a query posed by the Court, affirms the factum of settlement and states that he has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR is quashed. 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 24/01/2025 at 15:58:46 13. At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303: (SCC p. 340, para 58) “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.” 14. In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances of conviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an exercise in futility. 15. It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. 16. In the present case, as the State machinery has been put into motion and considerable time and resources of the investigating agency have been spent in the investigation of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to impose cost of Rs.30,000/- on the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit cost of Rs.30,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and the said amount should be utilized towards counselling / psychological support to be provided to POCSO victims requiring such assistance. 17. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 175/2013 under Sections 448/420/468/471/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed subject to payment of cost as aforesaid, within a period of two weeks from 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 24/01/2025 at 15:58:46 today. 18. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J JANUARY 14, 2025 ‘rs’ 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 24/01/2025 at 15:58:46