$~121 & 124

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 225/2026

BHASKAR JHA & ANR. .....Petitioners

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

+ CRL.M.C. 295/2026

RAJAN & ORS. .....Petitioners

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents

Appearance:- Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Jyoti Tayai, Ms. Riya Jha &

Mr. Arjun Bansal, Advocates for Petitioners alongwith

Petitioners in Person in Item Nos. 121 & 124.

Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Sachin

Kumar, SI Vishal, PS Gandhi Nagar.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. The present petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) seek quashing of two FIRs, being FIR No. 1418/2023 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 225/2026] [“FIR A”] and FIR No. 1419/2023 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 295/2026] [“FIR B”], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. Both FIRs are dated 02.11.2023, and were registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Outer

District, New Delhi, under Sections 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”].

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State in both petitions. Notice is accepted by Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel, on behalf of the complainants in both the petitions.

3. The petitions are taken up for hearing together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The cross-FIRs have been filed by neighbours against each other and arise out of the same incident dated 01.11.2023, which took place at about 01:45 P.M. in Gali No. 2, G-Block, Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi.

5. In CRL.M.C. 225/2026, the allegation is that the petitioners were driving a vehicle through the narrow lane and started blowing the horn loudly due to obstruction caused by a rickshaw-scooty. It is alleged that upon objection by a neighbour, a verbal altercation ensued, which escalated into a physical scuffle, during which the complainants and other residents of the lane sustained injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR A under Sections 323/341/34 IPC came to be registered.

6. On the other hand, FIR B, which is the subject matter of CRL.M.C. 295/2026, was registered on the complaint of the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 225/2026, alleging that when the petitioners were attempting to take their vehicle out of the lane after the obstruction was removed, they were wrongfully restrained, abused and assaulted by the complainant party and other neighbours, resulting in injuries to the petitioners and their companion. On the basis of these allegations, FIR B under Sections

323/341/34 IPC was registered as a cross-case. No chargesheet has yet been filed.

7. The Medico-Legal Case in both cases show simple injuries.

8. During the pendency of investigation, the parties amicably resolved their disputes by way of a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties on 03.01.2026. Pursuant to the settlement, the complainants in both FIRs have executed Affidavits-cum-No Objection Certificates on 06.01.2026, categorically stating that they have no objection to the quashing of the two FIRs, and all proceedings arising therefrom.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties are present before the Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer as well as by their respective counsel. The parties confirm before the Court that they have settled their disputes and do not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against each other.

10. It is pertinent to note that the offences under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC are compoundable, only at the instance of the aggrieved parties. However, that does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.

11. Having regard to the n