$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7751/2025 AJAY KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohd. Khalid, Advocate with Petitioners in person versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State R-2 in person CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 04.11.2025

1. The present 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. 376/2024, registered under Sections 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, [“BNS”] at P.S. Mayur Vihar Ph-1, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The case of the Prosecution emanates from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging that on 27^th October, 2024, when he reached near Mata Shani Mandir, he was confronted by the Petitioners, with Petitioner No. 2 armed with a knife. Petitioner No. 2 stated that since the Complainant had assaulted him while in jail, he would now settle the score. Petitioner No. 1 restrained the Complainant from behind, while Petitioner No. 2 allegedly inflicted knife blows on his stomach and head. On the Complainant raising alarm, both Petitioners fled. Based on this statement, the subject FIR was registered. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 3(5) and 109(1) of the BNS. The offence under Section 238(b) was also added by way of a supplementary chargesheet.

3. The parties, with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members of society, have amicably resolved their disputes. Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the present FIR against the Petitioners. In furtherance of this settlement, a Settlement Deed dated 20^th September, 2025, has been executed between the parties, copy whereof is placed on record, and has been perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioners and has voluntarily given his no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR.

4. The Complainant, who appears in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally states that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He explains that the incident in question took place in the heat of the moment between parties, who reside in the same neighbourhood. He clarifies that the Petitioners had no intention to cause him fatal injury and that the FIR was lodged in a state of anger and emotional distress. The Complainant further affirms that the settlement now reached between the parties is voluntary and has not been induced by any pressure, coercion or undue influence. He expresses that, in the interest of preserving cordial relations and restoring mutual harmony within the locality, he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State, opposes the request on the ground that the injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the Complainant’s person, namely, the parietal and abdominal regions, inviting charges under Sections 118(2) and 109(1) of the BNS. Therefore, the request for quashing should be declined.

6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offences under Sections 118(2), 109(1) and 238(b) of the BNS are non- compoundable, 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 th