CRL.M.C. 5718/2026 $~79-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010360382026 + CRL.M.C. 5718/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23909/2026 MOHD JIAHUL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aditya Gaur, Advocate. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Naveen Kumar, PS-Mehrauli. R-2 and R-3 in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. The petitioners have filed 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. 2526/2015, dated 23.09.2015, registered at Police Station Mehrauli, under Sections 323/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are present in Court, and decline the assistance of counsel. 3. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their 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 12/08/2026 at 10:58:33 CRL.M.C. 5718/2026 learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, are also present in Court, are identified by the IO. 4. The parties are neighbours. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 22.09.2015, at about 5:00 PM, a dispute over water occurred between the respondent No. 2’s mother-in-law and Abdul Rahim's family. Later that evening, around 10–12 persons allegedly trespassed into the respondent No. 2’s house, and a physical altercation took place between them and her husband [respondent No. 3 herein]. During the scuffle, the respondent No. 2 also sustained injuries. The assailants allegedly fled after a PCR call was made. The complainant also alleged that four one-tola gold bracelets and a Lava mobile phone were taken during the incident. Both injured persons were medically examined at AIIMS Trauma Centre, and their MLCs were obtained. 5. A chargesheet has been filed in the present proceedings. The injuries are stated to be simple in nature. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.07.2026. The settlement records that a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents has also been made on account of the said incident, and that the respondents have no surviving grievance. 7. The parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 8. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 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 12/08/2026 at 10:58:33 CRL.M.C. 5718/2026 9. The Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate circumstances, High Courts, while exercising their powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, where a compromise has been reached between the accused and the complainant, particularly when no overriding public interest is adversely affected. 10. 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 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 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 12/08/2026 at 10:58:33 CRL.M.C. 5718/2026 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 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 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 12/08/2026 at 10:58:33 CRL.M.C. 5718/2026 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 11. In the present proceedings, a dispute had arisen between parties due to a trivial neighbourhood water issue. The parties continue to reside in the same neighbourhood, and have since resolved their disputes amicably. The injuries are stated to be simple in nature. The allegations do not engage any wider public interest or grave criminality. In accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings is unlikely to result in a conviction and would serve no practical purpose, while only adding to the burden on the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 12. Having regard to the circumstances giving rise to the impugned FIR, I accept the suggestion of Mr. Vali that this is an appropriate case for the imposition of costs. The petitioners are collectively directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/-, to be paid to Delhi High Court Bar Association 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 12/08/2026 at 10:58:33 CRL.M.C. 5718/2026 Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within four weeks from today. The petitioners shall place a compliance affidavit on record within two weeks thereafter. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 2526/2015, dated 23.09.2015, registered at Police Station Mehrauli, under Sections 323/452/34 of IPC, alongwith with all proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 7, 2026 ‘B’/AD/ 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 12/08/2026 at 10:58:33