CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 & connected matter. $~36&37-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010091602026 + CRL.M.C. 1838/2026&CRL.M.A. 7563-64/2026 PARDEEP & ANR. .....Petitioners versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents # CNR No. DLHC010152192026 + CRL.M.C. 2804/2026&CRL.M.A. 11347/2026 SANDEEP & ANR. .....Petitioners versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Appearances: Mr. Rohit Kumar, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocates for R-2 in item No. 36, and for petitioners in item No. 37. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for petitioners in item No. 36 and for R-2 in item No. 37. Mr Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Umair. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. The present petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seek quashing of two FIRs, namely, FIR No. 307/2024 dated 13.07.2024, registered under Sections 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 20/08/2026 at 10:59:14 CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 & connected matter. 110/118(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”] [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 1838/2026], and FIR No. 306/2024 dated 13.07.2024, registered under Sections 110/74/3(5) of the BNS [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 2804/2026], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. Both FIRs were registered at Police Station Kanjhawala, Delhi, and the petitions seek their quashing on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State in both petitions. Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 1838/2026, while Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 2804/2026. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. All the parties are present in Court, except the complainant, who is respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 2804/2026 and petitioner No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 1838/2026. Learned counsel for the complainant seeks exemption from her personal appearance. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the complainant in CRL.M.C. 1838/2026, the personal appearance of petitioner No. 2 is exempted. All other parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer and learned counsel. 4. The cross-FIRs were registered by neighbours against each other and arise out of the same incident dated 11.07.2024. The parties are inter- related inasmuch as the complainant in CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 is arrayed as petitioner No. 1/accused in CRL.M.C. 2804/2026, while petitioner No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 is the complainant in CRL.M.C. 2804/2026. 5. In CRL.M.C. 1838/2026, it is alleged that on 11.07.2024, at about 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 20/08/2026 at 10:59:14 CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 & connected matter. Page 3 of 8 06:15 P.M., while proceeding towards his farms, the complainant passed by the house of petitioner No. 1, from where petitioner No. 1 and his mother, petitioner No. 2, approached him from the opposite direction. When the complainant moved aside to give way to them, petitioner No. 1 allegedly questioned him as to why he was staring at them. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1 thereafter picked up a brick lying by the roadside and struck the complainant on the head, while petitioner No. 2 attacked him with a pair of scissors. 6. On the other hand, FIR No. 306/2024, which is the subject matter of CRL.M.C. 2804/2026, was registered on the complaint of petitioner No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 1838/2026. It is alleged that, on 11.07.2024, at about 06:15 P.M., while returning from her farm, she reached near her house and got into an altercation with her neighbour, petitioner No. 1, after asking him to give way. Petitioner No. 1 allegedly abused her and caught her by the collar, following which her son took her inside the house. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1, accompanied by his brother, petitioner No. 2, thereafter entered the house carrying a knife, and petitioner No. 2 allegedly attacked her with the knife, causing an injury to her hand. 7. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed in both cases. 8. During the pendency of the present proceedings, with the intervention of common friends and neighbours, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Deed dated 15.07.2024 in respect of both FIRs. The complainants in both cases state that the allegations against each other arose from a misunderstanding in 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 20/08/2026 at 10:59:14 CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 & connected matter. Page 4 of 8 course of a trivial neighbourhood dispute. They have confirmed before the Court that they have amicably settled their disputes and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against each other any further. The parties continue to reside in the same locality and have expressed their desire to maintain peace and harmony. 9. Affidavits sworn by the respective complainants, expressing their no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, have also been placed on record. 10. Although the allegations in the impugned FIRs involve the use of knives, the injuries sustained by the parties are neither grievous nor lasting in nature. The Medico-Legal Certificate [“MLC”] placed on record in CRL.M.C. 2804/2026 records that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature and are amenable to treatment. There is, therefore, no material on record to suggest that the incident resulted in any permanent or serious bodily injury to either party. 11. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIRs. 12. Even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the FIR on the ground of settlement. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court 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 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 20/08/2026 at 10:59:14 CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 & connected matter. Page 5 of 8 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 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.” [Emphasis supplied.] Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab andAnr.[(2014) 6 SCC 466], 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 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 20/08/2026 at 10:59:14 CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 & connected matter. Page 6 of 8 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.” [Emphasis supplied.] 13. The present petitions arise out of cross-FIRs lodged by neighbours in respect of the same incident dated 11.07.2024, which appears to have arisen out of a sudden neighbourhood dispute. The injuries sustained by the parties, as reflected in the MLC placed on record, are simple in nature and have not resulted in any lasting or permanent injury. No firearm was used in the incident. More importantly, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by way of the Settlement Deed dated 15.07.2024 and have placed on record affidavits affirming the voluntary nature of the settlement and expressing their unequivocal no objection to the quashing 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 20/08/2026 at 10:59:14 CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 & connected matter. Page 7 of 8 of the impugned FIRs and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 14. The parties continue to reside in the same locality and have expressed their desire to maintain peace and harmony. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to serve any meaningful purpose and would only prolong a dispute which the parties have themselves chosen to bring to an end. The continuation of such proceedings would, therefore, serve no useful purpose and would result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and resources. This Court is accordingly of the view that the present cases are appropriate for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice and to facilitate the restoration of peace and harmony between the parties, rather than perpetuate an animosity arising from what was, in essence, a neighbourhood dispute. 15. The petitions are accordingly allowed, and FIR No. 307/2024 dated 13.07.2024, registered under Sections 110/118(1)/3(5) of the BNS, which is the subject matter of CRL.M.C. 1838/2026, and FIR No. 306/2024 dated 13.07.2024, registered under Sections 110/74/3(5) of the BNS,hich is the subject matter of CRL.M.C. 2804/2026, both registered at Police Station Kanjhawala, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed, subject to the petitioners in each petition collectively depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- in the respective case with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/c No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within two weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two weeks thereafter. 16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 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 20/08/2026 at 10:59:14 CRL.M.C. 1838/2026 & connected matter. Page 8 of 8 17. The petitions, alongwith pending applications,stand disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 17, 2026 ‘B’/SD/ 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 20/08/2026 at 10:59:14