$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 823/2026 MOHD TUFAIL AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aftab Hussain, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.

SI Akash, PS-Jamia Nagar.

Mr. M.J. Malik, Mr. Sahil Ahmed, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 30.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 3222/2026 (for exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 823/2026

1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 364/2024 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of settlement.

2. Issue Notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State. Mr. M.J. Malik, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioners and respondent No. 3 were all students at the same university, i.e. Jamia Milia Islamia University. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who stated that on 03.10.2024, the petitioners threatened and assaulted him.

4. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under the aforesaid sections, and Sections 190 and 191(2) of the BNS were added against all the petitioners in view of the fact that more than five accused persons were involved.

5. I am informed that the injuries were all simple in nature, and no sharp weapon or firearm was used in the commission of the offence.

6. During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes by way of a Compromise Deed executed between the parties on 14.01.2026. Pursuant to the settlement, respondent No. 2 states that he has no objection to quashing of the subject FIR, and all proceedings arising therefrom.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties are present in Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer as well as by their respective counsel.

8. The parties confirm before the Court that they have settled their disputes amicably and do not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against each other.

9. Even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the FIR on the ground of settlement. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

[(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard 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 justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising