$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 805/2026 MOHD ABBAS AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Salim Malik, Advocate alongwith Petitioner in Person.

versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with SI Sachin, PS Khajuri Khas.

Mr. Mohsin Khan, Advocate for R-

2 to 4.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 30.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 3167/2026 (Exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 805/2026

1. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), seeking the quashing of FIR No. 513/2014 dated 24.05.2014, registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State and Mr. Mohsin Khan, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. Petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1, while petitioner No. 3 is a close relative of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 3 and his sons, namely respondent Nos. 2 and 4. The allegations arise out of a dispute in the locality where the parties reside, which is stated to have originated from a financial disagreement. In the course of the incident, both sides sustained injuries. Consequently, the FIR was registered against the petitioners, while a cross-FIR bearing No. 514/2014 was registered against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC at Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi.

5. The disputes between the parties were subsequently resolved through an amicable settlement. Pursuant thereto, the FIR registered against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was compounded in the year 2015.

6. The present petition has been filed in view of the non- compoundable nature of the offence under Section 308 of the IPC. Mr. Salim Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that although a charge sheet was filed in the year 2025, the parties subsequently reduced their settlement into writing by way of a Compromise Deed dated 20.11.2025. In light of this settlement, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

7. The petitioners, as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 4, are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel and by the Investigating Officer.

8. Mr. Khan submits that the cross-FIRs were settled with the consent of all parties voluntarily, without any fear, pressure, or coercion. It is accordingly stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR, particularly since the FIR registered against them has already been compounded.

9. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of an offence, the High Court possesses jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

10. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303. has held as follows:

“58.Where the HighCourt quashes a criminal proceedinghavingregard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of