CRL.M.C. 7050/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7069/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~63 & 66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010451612026 + CRL.M.C. 7050/2026 & CRL.M.As. 29460-29461/2026 MANISH TIWARI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Prem Prakash Upadhyay, Ms. Sukanya Hazarika and Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocates. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate for State. S.I. Mohit, P.S. Begumpur. Ms. Kashish Jain, Mr. Aashish Sehrawat, Mr. Sourav Kumar, Mr. Sahil Mathur, Mr. Tushar Pal and Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocates. 66 # CNR No. DLHC010453022026 + CRL.M.C. 7069/2026 & CRL.M.As. 29521-29522/2026 POORAN SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Kashish Jain, Mr. Aashish Sehrawat, Mr. Sourav Kumar, Mr. Sahil Mathur, Mr. Tushar Pal and Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocates. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) &ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate for State. S.I. Mohit, P.S. Begumpur. Mr. Prem Prakash Upadhyay, Ms. 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 11:06:46 CRL.M.C. 7050/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7069/2026 Page 2 of 6 Sukanya Hazarika and Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 22.09.2026 1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 seek quashing of cross-FIRs arising out of the same incident. The details of the FIRs are as under: (i) In Crl. M.C. 7050/2026, FIR No. 416/2020 dated 4th December, 2020, under Sections 354B/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602, registered at P.S. Begumpur, on the complaint of Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners Manish Tiwari and his wife; and (ii) In Crl. M.C. 7069/2026, FIR No. 415/2020 dated 4th December, 2020, under Sections 354B/323/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Begumpur, on the complaint of Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners Pooran Singh and his wife 2. The allegations in FIR No. 416/2020 relate to the alleged incident of 4th December, 2020, following a quarrel involving the son of ‘X’. When ‘X’ reached the spot, the accused and his wife were allegedly involved in a quarrel. It is alleged that when ‘X’ intervened, the accused tore her clothes from the neck with an intent to insult her, removed the chuni from her head, threatened her and her family, and abused her. The FIR was thereafter registered under Sections 354B/323/506/509/34 IPC. The MLCs of the 1 “BNSS” 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 11:06:46 CRL.M.C. 7050/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7069/2026 Page 3 of 6 parties were also obtained during investigation. 3. Conversely, FIR No. 415/2020 records that, on the same date and arising out of the same altercation, ‘A’ alleged that one of the children in the neighbourhood had been troubling her son. When the issue was raised, an altercation ensued, during which the that the boy who had allegedly been harassing her son, allegedly abused her husband and assaulted him with a brick. It is further alleged that when ‘A’ came out of the house, the accused persons, along with their family members, assaulted her and her husband, and her clothes were torn during the altercation. The FIR was consequently registered under Sections 354B/323/34 IPC. The MLCs were also obtained in respect of the incident. 4. It is evident from the record that the aforesaid FIRs arise from the same incident and transaction dated 4th December, 2020. The parties have now amicably resolved their disputes. 5. The parties have entered into a Compromise-cum-Settlement Deed dated 24th August, 2026. The said Deed records that both FIR No. 415/2020 and cross-FIR No. 416/2020 arose out of the same incident and that the dispute between the parties had arisen on account of a misunderstanding and differences. The parties have agreed to put an end to all disputes, differences, claims and grievances arising out of the said incident and the two FIRs. 6. Both complainants are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. They have expressed their unequivocal consent to the settlement and their intent not to pursue the FIRs any further. Each has filed an Affidavit/No-Objection Certificate affirming that the compromise 2 “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 11:06:46 CRL.M.C. 7050/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7069/2026 Page 4 of 6 was entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. 7. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties. While the offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable in nature, the offence under Section 509 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court. The offence under Section 506 IPC is compoundable in certain cases. Section 34 IPC embodies the principle of joint liability and does not constitute a substantive offence by itself. The offence under Section 354B IPC, however, is non-compoundable. The non-compoundable nature of an offence does not, by itself, bar the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC. It is well settled that, in appropriate cases, this Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences. Such power may be exercised where the parties have arrived at a genuine and voluntary settlement, and the dispute is essentially personal in nature, provided that the exercise of such jurisdiction does not adversely affect any overriding public interest. 8. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,3 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 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 29/09/2026 at 11:06:46 CRL.M.C. 7050/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7069/2026 Page 5 of 6 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. 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] 9. The parties have entered into a voluntary and genuine settlement and have expressly stated that all their disputes and grievances arising out of the incident stand resolved. The complainants are no longer inclined to pursue the prosecution. In these circumstances, the possibility of the prosecution resulting in a conviction appears remote and bleak, and continuation of the proceedings is unlikely to serve any useful purpose. 10. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and in view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds the present 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 11:06:46 CRL.M.C. 7050/2026 & CRL.M.C. 7069/2026 Page 6 of 6 case to be an appropriate one for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to secure the ends of justice. 11. In view of the foregoing, FIR No. 416/2020, under Sections 354B/323/506/509/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Begumpur, Delhi, and FIR No. 415/2020, under Sections 354B/323/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Begumpur, Delhi, are hereby quashed. Consequently, all proceedings emanating from the aforesaid FIRs, including the proceedings pending before the Trial Court, are also quashed. 12. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the subject FIRs, it is appropriate to impose costs on the parties. Accordingly, all the Petitioners are directed to deposit a cost of INR 2,500/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of payment be submitted to the concerned IO within two weeks thereafter. 13. It is expected that the parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 14. The petitions are disposed of accordingly, along with all pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/hc 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 11:06:46