$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8278/2025 & CRL.M.As. 34508/2025, 34509/2025 YASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Dhama and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocates with Petitioner (in-Person).

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State.

ASI Bharat Sharma, P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi.

Respondent No. 2 (in-Person).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 20.11.2025

1. 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”]) seeks quashing of FIR No. 562/2024 dated 27^th October, 2024, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 332(c), 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023³ at P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was received from the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, Ankit Aggarwal, alleging that on 20^th October, 2024 at about 1:30 PM, his shop worker was prevented from parking a scooter by one Raju @ Rajkumar, with whom an altercation ensued. On being informed, the complainant approached Raju to question the said conduct, but was also abused, whereafter he returned to his shop. Shortly thereafter, Raju and his son Yash allegedly came to the complainant’s shop, assaulted him, pushed him against a glass window causing injury to his right elbow, and dragged him outside while continuing to beat him. The Complainant was thereafter taken for medical treatment to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital and subsequently to Max Hospital, Patparganj.

Based on the Complainant’s statement, the present FIR was registered.

3. Apart from the Petitioner, there was another accused, Raju @ Rajkumar, who has since deceased and therefore the proceedings against him stand abated.

4. Respondent No. 2 has amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioner and has decided not to pursue the present FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, a Memorandum of Understanding, [“MoU’]/Compromise Deed dated 27^th June, 2025, was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.

5. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give her no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR.

6. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2, who appears in Court and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He confirms that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. The Petitioner has also joined the proceedings in person and is duly

3 “BNS”

identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 118(1) BNS is non-compoundable, the offences under Sections 332(c), 351(2) and 115(2) BNS are compoundable in certain cases. 8. 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. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has held as follows:

“11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or crimi