$~132 & 133 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 676/2026 POONAM KUSHWAHA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Chitrakshi Vedi & Ms. Pooja Singh, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Sukhvir Singh, PS Jafrabad.

Mr. Aashish Kumar Singh & Mr. M.K. Goswami, Advocates for R-

2.

+ CRL.M.C. 678/2026 RAMAKANT AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aashish Kumar Singh & Mr.

M.K. Goswami, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Sukhvir Singh, PS Jafrabad.

Ms. Chitrakshi Vedi & Ms. Pooja Singh, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 2692/2026 (for exemption) in CRL.M.C. 676/2026 CRL.M.A. 2709/2026 (for exemption) in CRL.M.C. 678/2026 Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

1. The present petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seek quashing of two FIRs, being FIR No. 412/2025 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 676/2026] and FIR No. 413/2025 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 678/2026]. Both FIRs are dated 15.09.2025, and were registered at Police Station Jafrabad, New Delhi. FIR No. 412/2025 is registered under Sections 115(2)/118(1)/333/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], and FIR No. 413/2025 under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/74/79/3(5) of the BNS. The petitions are founded on a settlement arrived at between the parties. The respective complainants in the two FIRs, have been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in each petition.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Notice is accepted by Mr. Aashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 676/2026. Notice is accepted by Ms. Chitrakshi Vedi, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 678/2026.

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

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. All parties are present and are identified by the Investigating Officer and by their learned counsel. The parties have confirmed before the Court that they have settled their disputes and do not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against each other.

5. At the outset, Ms. Arya states that, in CRL.M.C. 676/2026, one child in conflict with law [“CCL”], who was also an accused in FIR No. 412/2025, has not been impleaded as a party, and two of the injured persons, being Ilias and Saddam, have also not been impleaded. Amended memo of parties is handed up in Court, impleading Iliyas, Saddam, and the CCL as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

6. The statement of the respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 676/2026, Iliyas and Saddam have been recorded in Court. They have all stated that disputes have been settled and they have no objection to the quashing of the FIRs against all the accused. The statements were made in Hindi and translated by me into English.

7. The cross-FIRs have been filed by neighbours, against each other. Both arise out of an incident which took place on 14.09.2025. In FIR No. 412/2025, the allegation against the accused petitioners in CRL.M.C. 676/2026, viz. Ms. Poonam Kushwaha, Mr. Ravinder Kushwaha, Mr. Anshu, and Mr. Milan Kushwaha [CCL], is that they forcibly entered the factory and assaulted the complainant, Iliyas, and Saddam following a prior dispute. On the other hand, in FIR 413/2025, the allegation against the accused petitioners in CRL.M.C. 678/2026, viz. Mr. Ramakant, Mr. Ramu, Mr. Ilias, Mr. Saddam, and Mr. Ram Ji, is that Mr. Ramu and Mr. Ram Ji had previously misbehaved with the complainant, and touched her inappropriately. Pursuant thereto, the complainant, alongwith her husband and minor son, visited the factory to confront the