CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~105 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010412052026 + CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 DHIRENDER PRATAP SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocate for R- 2 to 7. SI Suresh Kumar Meena and SI Sita Ram. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 02.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 27082/2026 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this 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. 1040/2014, dated 23.10.2014, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, North East District, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on 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 07/09/2026 at 13:16:13 CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 Page 2 of 7 the basis of a settlement between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Uma Shankar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 3. Petitioner No. 4 appears through video conference, while the other petitioners are present before the Court in person. They have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer [“IO”] as well as by their learned counsel. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are present, either in person or through video conference. They have also been identified by the IO as well as by their learned counsel. However, respondent No. 7 is represented by her husband – Ved Prakash, as her Power of Attorney [“POA”]. A copy of the POA dated 10.09.2025 has also been placed on record, which refers specifically to FIRs made by the parties against each other and authorises him to settle the disputes with regard to the said FIRs. The personal appearance of R7 is therefore exempted. 4. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are neighbours residing in the same locality. 5. The impugned FIR is registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that a dispute arose when one Mithilesh was carrying out construction work adjacent to respondent No. 2’s residence. After respondent No. 3 objected to the work, petitioner No. 2 allegedly assaulted respondent No. 2 with a stick, while petitioner No. 3 arrived with scissors and joined him in the altercation. When respondent Nos. 4 to 7 intervened, the petitioners and their associates allegedly arrived armed with sticks and, upon the exhortation of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, 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 07/09/2026 at 13:16:13 CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 Page 3 of 7 attacked them. Petitioner No. 3 allegedly threw scissors at respondent No. 2 and subsequently struck respondent No. 4 with an iron rod, while petitioner No. 5 allegedly assaulted respondent No. 6 with motorcycle keys. Respondent No. 2 alleged that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 sustained injuries in the incident. 6. A chargesheet stands filed in these proceedings. Although there were other persons who were also named in the FIR, I am informed that the chargesheet was only filed against the petitioners herein. 7. I am also informed that the injuries sustained were simple in nature, except injury suffered by respondent No. 6, which was characterised as grievous. However, respondent No. 6 is present in Court, and confirms that the altercation did not lead to any lasting consequences or permanent disability. 8. It is stated that a cross-FIR was filed on the complaint of petitioner No. 2 against respondent Nos. 2 to 7, arising out of the same incident [FIR No. 1041/2014, at P.S. New Usmanpur]. 9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by way of a Compromise Deed executed between them on 02.08.2026. The deed records settlement in connection with the impugned FIR, as well as the cross-FIR. 10. As the cross-FIR is registered under Sections 323/341/34 of IPC, learned counsel for the parties submit that they will approach the Trial Court for compounding of the offences. 11. The parties have confirmed that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, and without any coercion or undue influence. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the parties have approached this Court 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 07/09/2026 at 13:16:13 CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 Page 4 of 7 seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. 13. Even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a settlement between the parties. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, 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 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- 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 07/09/2026 at 13:16:13 CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 Page 5 of 7 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 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. 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 07/09/2026 at 13:16:13 CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 Page 6 of 7 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 present case stems from a neighbourhood dispute, which culminated in a scuffle. Almost twelve years have passed since the said incident. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably by way of a settlement, and the injuries sustained by the respondents are stated to be simple in nature, except respondent No. 6, who has faced no lasting injuries. Further, there is a cross-FIR consisting of compoundable offences which the parties have also agreed to compound. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the present case warrants the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as such an order would advance the ends of justice by enabling the parties to live in peace and harmony rather than perpetuating animosity. 15. Applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is further noted that respondents Nos. 2 to 7 have categorically affirmed before this Court that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily. In the given factual matrix, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to culminate in a conviction and would amount to an empty 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 07/09/2026 at 13:16:13 CRL.M.C. 6475/2026 Page 7 of 7 formality, thereby unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and leading to the avoidable consumption of public resources. 16. The petition is, accordingly, allowed, FIR No. 1040/2014, dated 23.10.2014, registered at Police Station New Usman Pur, North East District, Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the petitioners collectively, with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No. UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch] within a period of two weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed within one week thereafter. 17. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 18. The petition, alongwith the pending applications, is accordingly disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 SS/SM/ 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 07/09/2026 at 13:16:13