CRL.M.C. 7096/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010454682026 + CRL.M.C. 7096/2026 ASHWINI MUDGAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Dhruv Chaudhry, Mr. Shubham Sourav, Mr. Vijit Singh, Advocates with Petitioners in person. versus STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT) DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with Mr. Narender Kumar along with WSI Neelu, PS Dwarka North. Mr. Raj Mohammad, Advocate for R- 2 with Respondent No. 2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 774/2021 dated 23rd October, 2021,3 registered under Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Dwarka North, Delhi and all consequential 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “impugned FIR” 4 “IPC” 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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:30 CRL.M.C. 7096/2026 Page 2 of 5 proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the impugned FIR arises from an incident alleged to have occurred on 16th October, 2021, when Respondent No. 2/Complainant, accompanied by her mother, visited the residence of Petitioner No. 1 in connection with a property-related dispute. Respondent No. 2 alleged that Petitioner No. 1 and his son, Petitioner No. 2, subjected her to inappropriate physical contact, and that Petitioner No. 1 also pulled her, causing her clothes to tear. On her complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered. Upon investigation, Petitioner No. 1 was chargesheeted, while Petitioner No. 2 was placed in Column No. 12. The Trial Court, however, subsequently summoned Petitioner No. 2 as well. Thereafter, charges were framed against both Petitioners under Sections 354/34 and 354A/34 of the IPC, while Petitioner No. 1 was additionally charged under Section 354B of the IPC. 3. The parties state that, with the intervention of respected members of society, mutual friends and well-wishers, they have amicably resolved their disputes and executed Terms of Settlement dated 12th August, 2025, a copy whereof has been placed on record. The settlement records that it has been arrived at voluntarily, without any force, coercion or undue influence. No monetary consideration forms part of the settlement. 4. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. She confirms that she has voluntarily settled the matter with the Petitioners, without any force, coercion or undue influence, and states that she does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR and has no objection to its quashing. An affidavit to this effect has also been placed on record by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioners are also present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of 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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:30 CRL.M.C. 7096/2026 Page 3 of 5 amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. 5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Notably, the offences under Sections 354, 354A and 354B of the IPC are non- compoundable. At the same time, it is well settled that in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 5 (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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:30 CRL.M.C. 7096/2026 Page 4 of 5 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] 6. There can be no dispute that offences under Sections 354, 354A and 354B of the IPC cannot be treated as strictly in personam, as they also touch upon broader public concerns. At the same time, the Court must account for the facts and circumstances of each case and the practical realities of the prosecution. Where the settlement is bona fide and voluntary, and the complainant is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the possibility of securing a conviction becomes remote. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings may serve no useful purpose and amount to an exercise in futility. 7. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR and has confirmed that the settlement is voluntary and without any force, coercion or undue influence. The Court also notes that the dispute arose from an incident between persons who were residing in the same neighbourhood and the parties have since resolved their differences. Having regard to the settlement and 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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:30 CRL.M.C. 7096/2026 Page 5 of 5 unequivocal stand of Respondent No. 2, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no worthwhile purpose. The Court therefore considers it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to secure the ends of justice. 8. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No. 774/2021, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. 9. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Petitioners are directed to deposit INR 5,000/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/ab 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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:30