CRL.M.C. 7294/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010467862026 + CRL.M.C. 7294/2026, CRL.M.A. 30515/2026 ANUPAM MAHAJAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kavesh Bidhuri, Mr. Mandeep Baisala, Mr. Divyansh Chandel, Mr. Navdeep Mani and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocates with Petitioner in person, versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Subhash, PS-Ch. Puri. Ms. Swaty Singh Malik, Ms. Rohan Kumar, Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Ms. Kaushambi, MS. Chetna Singh and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. The present 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. 0043/2026 dated 28th March, 2026, registered under Sections 74/75/78/79/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at P.S. Chankya Puri, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, Respondent No. 2/Complainant alleged that the 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 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 05/10/2026 at 11:46:54 CRL.M.C. 7294/2026 Page 2 of 5 Petitioner, whom she frequently encountered while running at Nehru Park and Lodhi Garden, would repeatedly approach and follow her group despite their objections, make unwanted advances and use obscene language. She further alleged that, on 28th March, 2026, at about 6:50 AM, while she was running in Nehru Park with her coach and other group members, the Petitioner approached her, abused her, caught hold of and pushed her, and threatened to kill her. The Petitioner was apprehended by the members of her group, following which the police were called. On the basis of her complaint, FIR No. 43/2026 dated 28th March, 2026, was registered at P.S. Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, for offences under Sections 74, 75, 78, 79 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233. 3. The parties submit that, with the intervention of their family members and well-wishers, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. In this regard, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23rd July, 2026 (MoU) was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, recording the terms of their settlement. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court. In terms thereof, the parties have resolved their disputes, and Respondent No. 2 has given her no-objection to the quashing of the subject FIR, subject to the consideration of this Court. Respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit affirming the settlement and stating that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the subject FIR. 4. Respondent No. 2 is present and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. She states that she has amicably settled all her disputes with the Petitioner voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. She confirms that she has executed the MoU dated 23rd July, 2026, 3 “BNS” 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 05/10/2026 at 11:46:54 CRL.M.C. 7294/2026 Page 3 of 5 of her own free will and does not wish to pursue the subject FIR. She further states that she has no objection if FIR No. 43/2026 dated 28th March, 2026, registered at P.S. Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Sections 74, 75, 78 and 351(2) of the BNS are non- compoundable, the offence under Section 79 of the BNS is compoundable by the woman whose modesty was intended to be insulted or whose privacy was intruded upon, with the permission of the Court, in terms of Section 359(2) of the BNSS. 6. It is well settled that in the 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.,4 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. 4 (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 05/10/2026 at 11:46:54 CRL.M.C. 7294/2026 Page 4 of 5 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] 7. Although the offences under Sections 74, 75, 78, 351(2) and 79 of the BNS cannot be treated as constituting a purely private dispute, as they implicate concerns extending beyond the individual grievance of Respondent No. 2, the Court must also consider the circumstances in which the parties have settled their disputes. Respondent No. 2 has voluntarily entered into a bona fide settlement with the Petitioner, without any coercion, and has expressed her unwillingness to pursue the prosecution. In view of her stand, the prospect of securing a conviction may become remote, and continuation of the proceedings may serve no fruitful purpose. 8. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the voluntary 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 05/10/2026 at 11:46:54 CRL.M.C. 7294/2026 Page 5 of 5 settlement between the parties, and the stand of Respondent No. 2, this Court has considered the totality of the circumstances and the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) is warranted to secure the ends of justice. 9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed; FIR No. 0043/2026 under Sections 74/75/78/79/351(2) of BNS, registered at P.S. Chankya Puri, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. 10. However, since the State machinery was set in motion pursuant to the registration of the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of INR 5,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/nk 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 05/10/2026 at 11:46:54