$~134 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 682/2026 DEVENDER SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Kapil Kumar & Ms. Ruchika Kumari, Advocates alongwith Petitioners in Person.

versus THE STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with SI Amrender, PCR & SI Dinesh, PS Fatehpur Beri.

Mr. Naveen, Advocate for R2 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 2719/2026 (for exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 2720/2026 (for condonation of delay in re-filing This is an application seeking condonation of 31 days’ delay in re-

filing the petition.

For the reasons stated, the application is allowed, and the delay in re-filing the petition is condoned.

CRL.M.C. 682/2026

1. The petitioner has filed 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”]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 442/2016 dated 09.09.2016, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/354/354(B)/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Naveen, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

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

4. At the outset, Mr. Vali states that there was one other injured victim, i.e. sister of respondent No. 2, but she has not been made a party to the present petition. Upon an oral request of Mr. Kumar, she is impleaded as respondent No. 3. Amended memo of parties has been handed up in Court and is taken on record.

5. Mr. Kapil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 are neighbours, while petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are associates of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. There was a disagreement between the parties, emanating from a property dispute, as a result of which, the impugned FIR was registered.

6. The impugned FIR arises from an incident on 09.09.2016 at Phase IV, Aya Nagar, where an altercation arose in connection to construction work being carried out by the petitioners in the plot owned by respondent No. 3. During the course of the said altercation, the petitioners allegedly threatened respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with dire consequences, assaulted them, and touched respondent No. 2 inappropriately.

7. Subsequently, a charge sheet has been filed.

8. I am informed that the injuries were simple in nature.

9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 settled their disputes, and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.11.2025.

10. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

11. The petitioners are present and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by learned counsel and the IO.

12. The no-objection affidavit of respondent No. 3 has been handed over in Court, which affirms the fact of settlement and states that she has no objection to the FIR being quashed. The said affidavit is taken on record.

13. 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. 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