W.P.(CRL) 2968/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.09.2026 # CNR No.DLHC010454372026 + W.P.(CRL) 2968/2026, CRL.M.A. 29633/2026 VIJAY PAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Yashi Jain, Mr. Pravin Kr. Pachauri, Mr. Nishant Kashyap and Mrs. Vasundhara Jain, Advs along with petitioner in person. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO PS JYOTI NAGAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC along with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advs. for GNCTD. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2 and R-3. SI Pankaj Kumar, PS Jyoti Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA. J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 183/2024 under Sections 323/341/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”), registered at PS Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The present petition has been filed in view of the settlement Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:09:57 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 2968/2026 Page 2 of 4 agreement arrived at between the parties. 3. Although the allegations in the FIR are serious, and inter alia pertain to Section 354 of the IPC, considering the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and the peculiar factual conspectus of the present case, this Court finds that it would be apposite to accede to the joint request of the concerned parties for quashing of the FIR. 4. This Court is conscious that an offence under Section 354 of the IPC is a serious offence. However, considering that the incident in the present matter arises out of a sudden quarrel between a landlord and his son on one hand, and the tenant on the other hand, over the functioning of the water motor, which escalated into a scuffle, no extenuating circumstances exist that would prevent this Court from acceding to the joint request of the parties. No allegation of any sexual motive, or of any continuing harassment, has been made. 5. The settlement/compromise report dated 17.08.2026 was prepared by the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the compromise/understanding arrived at between the parties has been placed on record. In terms thereof, a bank draft of Rs. 70,000/- has been handed over to the respondent no. 2 during the course of the hearing. The complainant/respondent no.2 confirms receipt thereof. 6. The respondent no. 2 states that she entered into the settlement voluntarily, of her own free will, and without any coercion whatsoever. 7. She submits that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel and all her grievances stand redressed. She submits that she does not wish to pursue Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:09:57 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 2968/2026 Page 3 of 4 the prosecution and has no objection to the FIR being quashed. 8. This Court, in Vinod Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), Crl.M.C. 374/2021, vide order dated 08.02.2021, quashed an FIR registered under Section 354 of the IPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties, after noting, “since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case pending. It will be nothing but abuse of the process of law”. Furthermore, in Karan Moolchandani v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5146, this Court, by relying on Gian Singh (Supra), also quashed the FIR filed under the same offence on the basis of a settlement in the interest of justice. 9. The Bombay High Court in Ashish v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 4108, while quashing an FIR under Section 354 of the IPC on the basis of a compromise, remarked: “In the case at hand, the offence is about outraging modesty of a woman which is of personal nature. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that it has far reaching societal impact. By the time, the parties have settled the matter therefore we can very well foresee that in the situation if they are compelled to go on with trial, it would nothing but wastage of Court hours as well as hardship to the parties. In the circumstances this is a fit case where the Court should step in and exercise inherent powers for quashment of F.I.R. and consequential criminal proceedings. Therefore, we are of the opinion that such dead litigation should not breath furthermore.” 10. Similarly, the Madras High Court in G. Anandraj v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 18576, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rajak v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 18749, also quashed FIRs under Section 354 of the IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of the compromise reached at between the victim and the accused. 11. The concerned IO is present in Court and identifies the petitioners and By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:09:57 W.P.(CRL) 2968/2026 Page 4 of 4 the respondents. 12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 0183/2024 under Sections 323/341/354/34 of the IPC registered at PS Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/r,vk By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 16:09:57