$~15 & 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2025/2026 and CRL.M.A. 8349/2026, CRL.M.A. 8350/2026 SAGAR AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ishwan Singh, Advocate along with petitioners in person. versus STATE OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP. SI Sonal Raj PS Bharat Nagar SI Chaman lal 4th Bn DAP Counsel (appearance not given) Respondent nos. 2 to 4 in person. 16 + CRL.M.C. 2704/2026 and CRL.M.A. 10965/2026 PHULAN AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Counsel (appearance not given) along with the petitioners. versus STATE OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP. SI Sonal Raj PS Bharat Nagar SI Chaman lal 4th Bn DAP SI Pradeep Kumar, IO. Mr. Ishwar Singh, Advocate Respondent nos. 2 and 3 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 10.07.2026 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 18/07/2026 at 11:26:51 1. The present petitions are filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS’] (corresponding to Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) seeking quashing of two cross-FIRs, being FIR No. 407/2020 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 2025/2026] dated 08.06.2020 filed under section 354/323/354-B/506/509/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and FIR No. 408/2020 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 2704/2026] dated 08.06.2020 filed under section 354/323/354-B/506/509/34 of IPC. Both the FIRs are registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar. 2. The petitions are taken up for hearing together with the consent of learned counsels for the parties. 3. The parties are neighbours residing in the same vicinity of JJ Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi, and the dispute arose on account of some minor issues relating to cleaning of the area leading to altercations between the parties because of misunderstanding. 4. In CRL.M.C. 2025/2026, FIR No. 407/2020 was registered on complaint of respondent no.2 therein, alleging assault, tearing of her clothes, abuse and criminal intimidation by the petitioners. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed. 5. In CRL.M.C. 2704/2026, FIR No. 408/2020 was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2 therein, alleging that the petitioners had physically assaulted and abused her, torn her clothes and extended threats to her. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed. 6. The parties seek quashing of the FIRs on the ground that they have amicably resolved their disputes. In furtherance thereof, the parties have entered into two Memoranda of Understanding [MOU], both dated 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 18/07/2026 at 11:26:51 20.01.2026, without any monetary consideration. Both the MOUs of the respective parties have also been placed on record, affirming the voluntary nature of the settlement and conveying their no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 7. The parties in both the petitions are present before the Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer as well as their respective learned counsel. The parties confirm that they have amicably resolved their disputes and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against each other. They further state that they have no objection to the quashing of the subject FIRs. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the allegations levelled against each other arose out of misunderstandings stemming from trivial neighbourhood disputes. 8. On behalf of the State, no opposition has been expressed to the quashing of the FIRs in question. Learned APP for the State submits that, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the State has no objection if the present petitions are allowed and the subject FIRs are quashed. 9. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably settled their disputes, particularly when no overriding public interest is adversely affected. 10. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another1, the Supreme Court vide paragraph no.61 has held as follows:- 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 18/07/2026 at 11:26:51 “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 18/07/2026 at 11:26:51 11. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr.2, the Supreme Court laid down the principles to be borne in mind by the High Court’s while considering a settlement arrived at between the parties for quashing of criminal proceedings. The relevant observations of the said decision are reproduced hereinbelow: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 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 18/07/2026 at 11:26:51 whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere 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 18/07/2026 at 11:26:51 compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” 12. In the present case, the disputes arose between members of neighbouring families over trivial issues and have since been amicably resolved by way of the Memoranda of Understanding dated 20.01.2026. The settlement has been voluntarily arrived at between the parties, of their own free will and without any coercion or duress. 13. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the present case warrants exercise of its inherent powers to quash the cross-FIRs. The possibility of conviction appears remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the relief sought by the petitioners deserves to be granted. 14. For the aforesaid reasons and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, the aforesaid cross-FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 407/2020 and FIR No. 408/2020, both registered under Sections 354/323/354-B/506/509/34 of the IPC, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the petitions, along with all pending applications, stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 10, 2026/aks/sa 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 18/07/2026 at 11:26:51