CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 $~32 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 ROHIT TIWARI AND ANR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Samman Vardhan Gautam, Ms. Khushi Sharma, Mr. Sugam Mishra, Mr. Priyam Tiwari & Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State. SI Rahul Kumar, PS New Friends Colony. Mr. Harsh Kacker, Advocate for R- 2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 03.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 6767/2026 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 & CRL.M.A. 6766/2026 1. The petitioners have instituted the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 424/2025 dated 14.10.2025, registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, South-East Delhi, under Sections 324(4), 331(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], along with all proceedings emanating 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:40 CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled. 2. Mr. Samman Vardhan Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that while the offences under Sections 324(4) and 351(2) of BNS are compoundable, the offence under Section 331(1) BNS is non- compoundable. It is submitted that, in view thereof, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the said FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Harsh Kacker, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 4. The petitioners are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conferencing and has been identified by his learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 5. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the complainant [respondent No. 2 herein] stated that he is the co-owner and in possession of the rear portion of the ground floor of property bearing No. B-431, New Friends Colony, New Delhi [“subject property], by virtue of a sale deed dated 19.03.2007. It is alleged that petitioner No. 2 herein, who claims ownership of the first floor of the subject property alongwith terrace rights, was carrying out construction and alteration works through petitioner No. 1 herein and certain other persons. During the course of such construction, some materials allegedly fell onto 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:40 CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 ground floor portion, thereby causing inconvenience to the complainant and his family. It is further alleged that on 04.10.2025, during the absence of the complainant, the petitioners entered the premises and damaged the front door of the complainant’s portion without his consent. Upon being confronted on 06.10.2025, petitioner No. 1 and the other persons allegedly refused to carry out the necessary repairs, whereupon an altercation ensued, during which threats were allegedly extended and abusive language was used. It is also alleged that the complainant was pushed and subjected to threats in relation to his possession of the said premises. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the subject FIR came to be registered. 7. I am informed that no chargesheet has been filed in the matter thus far and that the investigation is still at a nascent stage. 8. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2, who continue to reside in the same building, and petitioner No. 1, who was employed by petitioner No. 2 and is stated to have been involved in the incident, have amicably resolved the disputes, which appear to have arisen out of a misunderstanding in the course of a disagreement between neighbours. Respondent No. 2 is present and has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the allegations any further. 9. The parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.01.2026, whereby they have amicably resolved their disputes and agreed, inter alia, that petitioner No. 2 shall undertake, at his own cost, the necessary repairs and restoration of the damaged gate/front door, along with the requisite plastering work, so as to restore the same to a safe and functional condition to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2. It 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:40 CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 has also been brought to the notice of this Court that a civil suit, being CS SCJ No. 1266/2025, instituted by the wife of petitioner No. 2 against respondent No. 2, has been withdrawn in terms of the said settlement vide order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the parties submit and confirm that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily and out of their own free will, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure of any nature whatsoever. 11. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, High Courts may, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC], quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties have arrived at a settlement, particularly in cases where no overriding public interest or larger societal interest is likely to be adversely affected. 13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has held as follows: “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. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:40 CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”2 Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under: “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 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:40 CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 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 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.”4 14. The offences alleged in the subject FIR arise out of a personal dispute between the parties and are essentially private in nature. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 continue to reside in the same building, and the allegations appear to have arisen from a misunderstanding between neighbours. The dispute does not involve any 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:40 CRL.M.C. 1664/2026 larger public interest or grave criminality affecting society at large. It is also relevant to note that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes within a short period of the registration of the FIR, and respondent No. 2 has affirmed that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion. In these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and is unlikely to result in a conviction, while unnecessarily burdening the criminal justice system and consuming valuable public resources. On the other hand, quashing of the proceedings would facilitate peaceful co-existence between the parties and obviate the possibility of further discord between them. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and in light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 424/2025 dated 14.10.2025, registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, South East, Delhi, under Sections 324(4), 331(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed. 16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 17. The petition, alongwith pending applications, accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 3, 2026 ‘pv’/SD/ 4 Emphasis supplied. 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 06/07/2026 at 10:25:40